Terms used to describe and define activities undertaken as a result of the medication review process: Do they require standardisation? A systematic review

Alharthi, Mohammed, Wright, David, Scott, Sion and Blacklock, Jeanette (2023) Terms used to describe and define activities undertaken as a result of the medication review process: Do they require standardisation? A systematic review. International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy, 45 (2). pp. 304-319. ISSN 2210-7703

Microsoft Word (Scott_Terms_rba13-s11096-022-01494-5) - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution. Download (405kB)

Abstract

Background: Medication review (MR) is the systematic assessment of a patient’s medications by a healthcare practitioner. It is necessary to compare such MR interventions to rationalise differences between them and assess their impact. The development of an international taxonomy for terms used to describe activities undertaken within the MR process would facilitate quality of reporting, and the comparison of different interventions.  Aim: To identify overarching and individual MR activity terms and definitions reported within studies where MR was the main intervention.  Method: A systematic review of the literature was performed using search terms for ‘Intervention’ and ‘Outcome’. Papers with empirical data reporting and describing MR activities in English were included. The Mixed Method Appraisal Tool was used to assess research quality. Two researchers reviewed all included literature independently. Data extraction was performed using Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care to report study characteristics, and terms and definitions used to describe MR activities.  Results: Twenty-one papers were included: eight quantitative non-randomised trials (38%), eight randomised controlled trials (38%), and five quantitative descriptive studies (24%). Overarching interventions such as ‘Clinical’, ‘Education’ and ‘Technical’ were identified with no standardised definitions. Terms used to describe the medication review activities, such as stop, start and change, varied with significant potential for ambiguity.  Conclusion: The literature reports a variety of overlapping, ambiguous and undefined MR terms. As a result, comparing process evaluations from MR interventions may be difficult. A standardised taxonomy to describe, define and report MR activities is required.

Item Type:	Article
Uncontrolled Keywords:	medication review,standardisation,systematic review,taxonomy,pharmacy,toxicology,pharmacology,pharmaceutical science,pharmacology (medical) ,/dk/atira/pure/subjectarea/asjc/3600/3611
Faculty \ School:	Faculty of Science > School of Chemistry, Pharmacy and Pharmacology Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences > School of Health Sciences
UEA Research Groups:	Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences > Research Centres > Norwich Institute for Healthy Aging
Related URLs:	http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?...
Depositing User:	LivePure Connector
Date Deposited:	16 Jan 2026 11:30
Last Modified:	18 Jan 2026 07:30
URI:	https://ueaeprints.uea.ac.uk/id/eprint/101627
DOI:	10.1007/s11096-022-01494-5

Downloads

Actions (login required)

View Item