Table 1 List of excluded studies along with reasons for exclusion
Number | Authors | Country of origin | Study title | Aim of the study | Reason for exclusion |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Adams B (2015) [34] | England | NHS Alliance: the evolution of primary care | This paper highlighted the NHS Alliance conference, which focused on pharmacist integration and GP work burden. | C: This was a commentary. |
2 | Agyapong, V. I., et al. (2011) [35] | Ireland | Shared care between specialized psychiatric services and primary care: the experiences and expectations of consultant psychiatrists in Ireland | The article explores the views of consultant psychiatrists in Ireland on shared care between specialized psychiatric services and primary care for patients with mental health difficulties. | I: Intervention not delivered by a pharmacist in general practice. The intervention was not delivered by the person specified in the review criteria. |
3 | Al-Alawi, K., et al. (2019) [36] | Oman | Care providers’ perceptions towards challenges and opportunities for service improvement at diabetes management clinics in public primary health care in Muscat, Oman: a qualitative study | The article explores the challenges and discusses opportunities for improvement of diabetes management clinics in primary healthcare centres in Oman. | I: Intervention not delivered by a pharmacist in general practice. The intervention was not delivered by the person specified in the review criteria. I: Not a shared care agreement (SCA) intervention. The study used the wrong model of intervention. |
4 | Alhabib, S., et al. (2016) [37] | Saudi Arabia | An evolving role of clinical pharmacists in managing diabetes: evidence from the literature | This article is a narrative review of the evidence of the role of clinical pharmacists in managing diabetic patients. | I: Not a shared care agreement (SCA) intervention. The study used the wrong model of intervention. |
5 | Ali, S., et al. (2013) [38] | USA | Psychiatric providers’ willingness to participate in shared decision-making (SDM) when prescribing psychotropic medications | This article aims to determine the psychiatric providers’ willingness to engage in SDM and factors that influence willingness. | I: Intervention not delivered by a pharmacist in general practice. The intervention was not delivered by the person specified in the review criteria. I: Not a shared care agreement (SCA) intervention. The study used the wrong model of intervention. |
6 | Aljumah, K. and M. A. Hassali (2015) [39] | Saudi Arabia | Impact of pharmacist intervention on adherence and measurable patient outcomes among depressed patients: a randomised controlled study | This article evaluates the effectiveness of shared decision-making on pharmacist intervention for improving adherence and patient outcomes, compared with usual care. | I: Not a shared care agreement (SCA) intervention. The study used the wrong model of intervention. C: Wrong design. The design of the study was not the one desired. |
7 | Almunef, M., et al. (2019) [40] | England | Management of chronic illness in young people aged 10–24 years: a systematic review to explore the role of primary care pharmacists | The article examines the role of primary care pharmacists in the management of chronic illnesses in young people aged 10–24 years. | I: Insufficient intervention data. Intervention was not described in enough detail to determine the study should be included. C: Wrong design. The design of the study was not the one desired. |
8 | Alshehri et al. (2021) [41] | England | Evaluating the role and integration of general practice pharmacists in England: a cross-sectional study | The paper aims to assess the role performed by GP pharmacists and their integration into practice exploring facilitators and barriers to integration across England. | I: Insufficient intervention data. Intervention was not described in enough detail to determine the study should be included. I: Not a shared care agreement (SCA) intervention. The study used the wrong model of intervention. |
9 | Anderson, K., et al. (2015) [42] | Australia | Polypharmacy, deprescribing and shared decision-making in primary care: the role of the accredited pharmacist | Commentary: The article discusses the role of the pharmacist in supporting deprescribing and reducing polypharmacy. | C: This was a commentary. |
10 | Anonymous (1994) [43] | England | General practitioner/pharmacy interface a local initiative | Commentary: A primary care development officer describes how communication between general practitioners and pharmacists has been improved in Sunderland. | C: This was a commentary. |
11 | Anonymous (1999) [44] | England | The role of pharmacists in primary care groups (PCGs): a strategic approach | Conference: Examined issues surrounding the relevance and role of pharmacists within the new NHS structures, with a particular emphasis on how pharmacists could contribute to the work of PCGs. | C: This was a commentary. |
12 | Anonymous (1995) [45] | England | Pharmacy in a new age: the role of government | Commentary: This paper considers important factors shaping the future of pharmacy. | C: This was a commentary. |
13 | Anonymous (2003) [46] | England | Shared care addiction scheme starts | Commentary: The paper discusses a seamless addiction service involving hospital and community pharmacists. | C: This was a commentary. |
14 | Ashcroft, D. M., et al. (1998) [47] | England | Shared care: a study of patients’ experiences with erythropoietin | The article evaluates the impact of a shared care scheme on patients receiving erythropoietin treatment. | I: Intervention not delivered by a pharmacist in general practice. The intervention was not delivered by the person specified in the review criteria. |
15 | Bains, S., et al. (2021) [48] | England | The pharmacist-led accelerated transfer of patients to shared care for the monitoring and prescribing of immunomodulatory therapy during COVID-19. | Conference abstract: The conference abstract discusses the use of secondary care pharmacist in supporting transfer of medication into primary care. | I: Intervention not delivered by a pharmacist in general practice. The intervention was not delivered by the person specified in the review criteria. C: Wrong design. The design of the study was not the one desired. |
16 | Bajramovic, J., et al. (2004) [49] | Australia | Perceptions around concordance—focus groups and semi-structured interviews conducted with consumers, pharmacists and general practitioners | The article explores the beliefs and expectations of general practitioners, consumers and pharmacists in relation to concordance. | C: Wrong design. The design of the study was not the one desired. |
17 | Barnes, E., et al. (2017) [50] | England | New roles for clinical pharmacists in general practice. | Commentary: The paper discusses the NHS England scheme to fund, recruit and employ more clinical pharmacists in GP practices. | C: This was a commentary. |
18 | Bellingham, C. (2004) [51] | England | How to improve medicines management at the primary/secondary care interface | Commentary: The paper discusses medicines management at the interface. | C: This was a commentary. |
19 | Berendsen, A. J., et al. (2009) [52] | Netherlands | Transition of care: experiences and preferences of patients across the primary/secondary interface—a qualitative study. | The article explores the transition of care at the primary–secondary interface with reference to the impact of patients’ ability to make choices about their secondary care providers. | I: Not a shared care agreement (SCA) intervention. The study used the wrong model of intervention. C: Wrong design. The design of the study was not the one desired. |
20 | Bojke, C., et al. (2010) [53] | England | Cost-effectiveness of shared pharmaceutical care for older patients: RESPECT trial findings | The article evaluates the cost-effectiveness of shared pharmaceutical care for older people compared to usual care. | I: Not a shared care agreement (SCA) intervention. The study used the wrong model of intervention. C: Wrong design. The design of the study was not the one desired. |
21 | British National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts (1994) [54] | England | NAHAT Update: asthma care—the challenge ahead | Commentary: This paper examines the challenges which the treatment and management of asthma for all sectors of the health service. | C: This was a commentary. |
22 | Cain, R. M. (2006) [55] | USA | The physician-pharmacist interface in the clinical practice of pharmacy | Commentary: This paper deals with healthcare interface and how this may influence the overall practice of clinical pharmacy. | C: This was a commentary. |
23 | Carrington, I. and J. McAloon (2018) [56] | Northern Ireland | Why shared-care arrangements for prescribing in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder may not be accepted | The article explores the reasons for the failure of uptake of shared-care arrangements for prescribing in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. | I: Intervention not delivered by a pharmacist in general practice. The intervention was not delivered by the person specified in the review criteria. |
24 | Chana, N., et al. (2017) [57] | England | Improving specialist drug prescribing in primary care using task and error analysis: an observational study | The article explores how clinical decision support systems can support GPs in prescribing specialist drugs using a task and error analysis. | I: Intervention not delivered by a pharmacist in general practice. The intervention was not delivered by the person specified in the review criteria. |
25 | Chartrand, M., et al. (2013) [58] | Canada | Implementation and evaluation of pharmacy services through a practice-based research network (PBRN) | The article discusses how to develop a web-based PBRN and assess the feasibility of this intervention. | I: Not a shared care agreement (SCA) intervention. The study used the wrong model of intervention. |
26 | Cox, W. M. (2002) [59] | Wales | Evaluation of a shared-care program for methadone treatment of drug abuse: an international perspective | This article evaluates a North Wales Shared-Care Program for methadone for the treatment of drug abuse. | I: Intervention not delivered by a pharmacist in general practice. The intervention was not delivered by the person specified in the review criteria. I: Not a shared care agreement (SCA) intervention. The study used the wrong model of intervention. |
27 | Crowe, S., et al. (2009) [60] | England | The prescribing of specialist medicines: what factors influence GPs’ decision making? | The article explores the factors which influence GPs’ decision-making process when requested to prescribe a specialist drug. | I: Intervention not delivered by a pharmacist in general practice. The intervention was not delivered by the person specified in the review criteria. |
28 | Crowe, S., et al. (2010) [61] | England | Shared care arrangements for specialist drugs in the UK: the challenges facing GP adherence | The article explores the challenges facing GPs’ adherence to shared care arrangements for specialist drugs. | I: Intervention not delivered by a pharmacist in general practice. The intervention was not delivered by the person specified in the review criteria. |
29 | Duggan, C., et al. (2001) [62] | England | Shared care in the UK: failings of the past and lessons for the future | To article explores and evaluates the implementation of shared care in the UK. | I: Intervention not delivered by a pharmacist in general practice. The intervention was not delivered by the person specified in the review criteria. |
30 | Fearne, J., et al. (2018) [63] | Malta | Development and evaluation of shared paediatric pharmaceutical care plan | The article explored the development of a shared paediatric pharmaceutical care template aimed at improving communication between pharmacists across different care settings. | I: Intervention not delivered by a pharmacist in general practice. The intervention was not delivered by the person specified in the review criteria. I: Not a shared care agreement (SCA) intervention. The study used the wrong model of intervention. |
31 | Finch, E. and C. Ford (2002) [64] | England | Shared care at the primary and secondary interface: GPs and specialist drug services | Book: This book chapter describes shared care of drug users in the UK. | C: This was a commentary. |
32 | Grixti, D., et al. (2014) [65] | Malta | Development of shared care guidelines in rheumatology | A poster presentation on the development of shared care guidelines for rheumatology drugs. With the intent of providing seamless care between primary and secondary care settings. | I: Intervention not delivered by a pharmacist in general practice. The intervention was not delivered by the person specified in the review criteria. |
33 | Gu, Y., et al. (2012) [66] | New Zealand | An Innovative Approach to Shared Care–New Zealand Pilot Study of a Technology-enabled National Shared Care Planning Programme | The article describes progress and lessons learned from the New Zealand National Shared Care Planning Programme. | I: Not a shared care agreement (SCA) intervention. The study used the wrong model of intervention. |
34 | James, O., et al. (2020) [67] | Ireland | Pharmacists in general practice: a qualitative process evaluation of the General Practice Pharmacist (GPP) study | The article explores the implementation of The General Practice Pharmacist (GPP) intervention and the experiences of study participants and lessons for future implementation. | I: Not a shared care agreement (SCA) intervention. The study used the wrong model of intervention. |
35 | Johnson, C. (2018) [68] | USA | Adult attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) clinic: a collaboration between psychiatry, primary care and pharmacy to improve access, care experience and affordability | The article discusses a collaborative, team-based adult ADHD service to improve the care experience. | I: Intervention not delivered by a pharmacist in general practice. The intervention was not delivered by the person specified in the review criteria. |
36 | Jones, B. W. and W. Clark (2003) [69] | England | Shared care agreements: how to overcome the blank page | This article describes how prescribing problems that occur across the primary-secondary care interface are being tackled by pharmacists and others in the West Midlands. | P: Wrong setting. The research setting was not correct. C: Wrong design. The design of the study was not the one desired. |
37 | Jones, C., et al. (2017) [70] | England | Update on the introduction of dose tapering to modernize and improve the biologics service in a district general hospital | Poster presentation: The poster presentation discusses the introduction of a departmental dose tapering protocol for patients with Rheumatoid arthritis. | P: Wrong setting. The research setting was not correct. I: Intervention not delivered by a pharmacist in general practice. The intervention was not delivered by the person specified in the review criteria. |
38 | Jones, E. and O. A. Cuevas (2018) [71] | England | An audit on the use and monitoring of azathioprine (AZA) in a paediatric gastroenterology centre. Could NHS England via specialist commissioning rules (NHS-E-SPR) be affecting quality of care? | Poster presentation: An audit of gastroenterology centre’s adherence to the British Society of Gastroenterology Hepatology and Nutrition (BSPGHAN) guideline. | P: Wrong setting. The research setting was not correct. I: Intervention not delivered by a pharmacist in general practice. The intervention was not delivered by the person specified in the review criteria. |
39 | Lloyd, L. A., et al. (2009) [72] | England | An audit of methotrexate monitoring in primary care as part of a shared care agreement | Conference abstract: The conference abstract discusses and audit of methotrexate. | I: Insufficient intervention data. Intervention was not described in enough detail to determine the study should be included. |
40 | MacLellan, J., et al. (2017) [73] | England | Shared care: How can we do it? Findings from the British HIV Association (BHIVA) Primary Care Project | Report: Report by BHIVA on Commissioning and delivery of high-quality healthcare for people with HIV between primary and specialist care across the life course. | C: Wwrong design. The design of the study was not the one desired. I: Intervention not delivered by a pharmacist in general practice. The intervention was not delivered by the person specified in the review criteria. |
41 | Mercer, K., et al. (2018) [74] | Canada | Physician and pharmacist medication decision-making in the time of electronic health records: mixed-methods study | The article examines how physicians and pharmacists understand and communicate patient-focused medication information using electronic health records. | I: Intervention not delivered by a pharmacist in general practice. The intervention was not delivered by the person specified in the review criteria. C: Wrong design. The design of the study was not the one desired. |
42 | Mercer, K., et al. (2020) [75] | Canada | “My pharmacist”: creating and maintaining relationship between physicians and pharmacists in primary care settings | The article examines how pharmacists and primary care physicians communicate with each other and maintain relationships. | C: Wrong design. The design of the study was not the one desired. |
43 | Morakinyo, J. (2017) [76] | England | Shared care guideline for the use of methylphenidate, dexamfetamine, lisdexamfetamine dimesylate & atomoxetine for the management of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adults (18–64 years). | An NHS document provides information allowing patients with ADHD to be managed safely via the transfer of prescribing across the primary and secondary care interface. | Guideline not original research. |
44 | Mousa, Y., et al. (2009) [77] | England | Investigating the potential for improved management of patients with long term conditions through shared-care protocols | This article evaluates the need and satisfaction of GPs and community pharmacists within the area with these guidelines. | I: Intervention not delivered by a pharmacist in general practice. The intervention was not delivered by the person specified in the review criteria. |
45 | NICE (2016) [78] | England | Transition between inpatient hospital settings and community or care home settings for adults with social care needs. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence | This guideline covers the transition between inpatient hospital settings and community or care homes for adults with social care needs. | Guideline not original research. |
46 | Nkansah, N., et al. (2010) [79] | International (Systematic Review: Cochrane Review). Authors based in the USA | Effect of outpatient pharmacists’ non-dispensing roles on patient outcomes and prescribing patterns | The article discusses outpatient pharmacists’ non-dispensing roles on patient and health professional outcomes. | C: Wrong design. The design of the study was not the one desired. |
47 | O’Halloran, K. A. (2016) [80] | England | Developing integrated care teams across the North West London System | Conference abstract on developing integrated care system in London. | C: This was a commentary. |
48 | Petty, D. (2019) [81] | England | Clinical pharmacist roles in primary care networks (PCN) | This article discusses the roles that will be expected of clinical pharmacists within PCNs and how these roles are likely to develop in the future. | C: This was a commentary. |
49 | Murphy, K (2018) [82] | Australia | Clozapine, concomitant medications and consumers: assessing the accuracy of medication records and the lived experience of people prescribed clozapine under shared care arrangements | This thesis discusses interventions to optimise access to accurate medication information, and communication pathways between stakeholders and consumers of clozapine shared care service. | I: Intervention not delivered by a pharmacist in general practice. The intervention was not delivered by the person specified in the review criteria. |
50 | Richmond, S., et al. (2010) [83] | England | Effectiveness of shared pharmaceutical care for older patients: RESPECT trial findings | The article evaluates the effectiveness of pharmaceutical care for older people, shared between GPs and community pharmacists in the UK, relative to usual care. | I: Intervention not delivered by a pharmacist in general practice. The intervention was not delivered by the person specified in the review criteria. C: Wrong design. The design of the study was not the one desired. |
51 | Roberts, R. I. (1997) [84] | Wales | Roberts, R. I. “The Welsh shared care prescribing project” | This article discusses the Welsh shared care prescribing project. | N article not available. The staff performing the systematic review were unable to obtain the full text of the article. |
52 | Sibbald, B., et al. (1992) [85] | England | Prescribing at the hospital-general practice interface. II: impact of hospital outpatient dispensing policies in England on general practitioners and hospital consultants | This article evaluates the impact on general practitioners and hospital consultants on outpatient dispensing policies. | I: Intervention not delivered by a pharmacist in general practice. The intervention was not delivered by the person specified in the review criteria. |
53 | Shemilt et al. (2021) [86] | England | An evaluation into the refusal of essential shared care agreements: quetiapine | The abstract evaluated the documented reasons for primary care refusal of prescribing quetiapine under ESCAs in one UK NHS Trust. | I: Intervention not delivered by a pharmacist in general practice. The intervention was not delivered by the person specified in the review criteria. C: Wrong design. The design of the study was not the one desired. |
54 | Smith, S. M., et al. (2017) [87] | International (Systematic Review: Cochrane Review). Authors based in Republic of Ireland | Shared care across the interface between primary and specialty care in the management of long-term conditions. | This systematic review examines the effectiveness of shared care health service interventions. | I: Intervention not delivered by a pharmacist in general practice. The intervention was not delivered by the person specified in the review criteria. |
55 | Sowerby, C. and D. Taylor (2017) [88] | England | Cross-sector user and provider perceptions on experiences of shared-care clozapine: a qualitative study | This article examines stakeholder perceptions on delivering a shared-care clozapine service and understanding its effectiveness and acceptability of this service. | I: Intervention not delivered by a pharmacist in general practice. The intervention was not delivered by the person specified in the review criteria. |
56 | Steckowych, K. and M. Smith (2018) [89] | USA | Lessons learned and real-world challenges of implementing clinical pharmacy services in a primary care office | Conference abstract on the implementation and challenges faced while starting new clinical pharmacy services within primary care. | C: Wrong design. The design of the study was not the one desired. |
57 | Swallow, V. M., et al. (2013) [90] | England | Multidisciplinary teams, and parents, negotiating common ground in shared care of children with long-term conditions: A mixed methods study | This article examines the multi-method study of social interaction between multidisciplinary teams and parents as they shared clinical care. | P: Wrong setting. The research setting was not correct. C: Wrong design. The design of the study was not the one desired. |
58 | Taylor, D., et al. (2010) [91] | England | User and staff perspectives of clozapine clinic services | The article examines the stakeholder’s perspectives of specialist clozapine clinics in England. | P: Wrong setting. Something about the research setting was not correct. I: Intervention not delivered by a pharmacist in general practice. The intervention was not delivered by the person specified in the review criteria. |
59 | Terry, D. R. P. (2011) [92] | England | Medicines management across the primary-hospital healthcare interface: a study of paediatric patients | This thesis examines medicines management across the primary and secondary interface for paediatric patients and how processes can be improved. | I: Intervention not delivered by a pharmacist in general practice. The intervention was not delivered by the person specified in the review criteria. C: Wrong design. The design of the study was not the one desired. |
60 | Terry, D., et al. (2012) [93] | England | Prescribing for children at the interfaces of care | This article reviews the current arrangements in England relating to prescribing for children at the interfaces of care. | C: This was a commentary. |
61 | Travis, S. S. and Bethea L. S. (2001) [94] | USA | Medication administration by family members of dependent elders in shared care arrangements | This article examines family member’s experiences with medication administration. | I: Intervention not delivered by a pharmacist in general practice. The intervention was not delivered by the person specified in the review criteria. C: Wrong design. The design of the study was not the one desired. |
62 | Tolley L. et al. (2021) [95] | England | An evaluation into the refusal of essential shared care agreements: aripiprazole | The abstract evaluated the documented reasons for primary care refusal of prescribing aripiprazole under ESCAs in one UK NHS Trust. | I: Intervention not delivered by a pharmacist in general practice. The intervention was not delivered by the person specified in the review criteria. C: Wrong design. The design of the study was not the one desired. |
63 | Walker, M. (2001) [96] | England | Shared care for opiate substance misusers in Berkshire | A discussion paper on shared care services for opiate substance misusers. | C: This was a commentary. |
64 | Yones, E., et al. (2019) [97] | England | Prescribing dronedarone for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: how is it done across the UK and is it safe? | A short report on the prescribing of dronedarone in the UK and how it can be safely prescribed with a local shared care protocol. | I: Intervention not delivered by a pharmacist in general practice. The intervention was not delivered by the person specified in the review criteria. |