Objective: To describe telehealth interventions and determine their effect on medication adherence for patients with type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and/or dyslipidemia. Data Sources: PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, CINAHL Plus, PsycINFO, Academic Search Ultimate, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Scopus, Web of Science, WHO Global Index Medicus, association websites, and gray literature were searched from January 1, 1998, to December 31, 2019. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Eligible studies reported eHealth, mobile health, and telehealth interventions for adult patients prescribed medications for chronic condition management (eg, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and/or dyslipidemia). Studies were required to evaluate medication adherence outcomes (eg, medication possession ratio [MPR], proportion of days covered (PDC)]. Randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and controlled before-and-after studies were included. Multiple reviewers independently extracted data and evaluated risk of bias. Data Synthesis: Of 8693 studies identified, 13 reported either an MPR or PDC and were included in the systematic review. The systematic review demonstrated that electronic health (eHealth) and telehealth interventions were successful at improving medication adherence, whereas mobile health interventions did not improve medication adherence. Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice: This systematic review highlighted the available research and findings of studies assessing interventions to improve medication nonadherence among patients with type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and/or dyslipidemia. The evaluated findings lend support to the need for targeted medication adherence interventions based on patient population and practice settings. Conclusions: Telehealth modalities include telephonic outreach and specialized tools designed to increase health literacy. eHealth and telehealth medication adherence interventions were associated with improved MPR and/or PDC rates.

Background: Older surgical patients are at high risk of developing postoperative delirium. Non-pharmacological strategies are recommended for delirium prevention, but no pharmacological agents have compelling evidence to decrease the incidence of delirium. The purpose of this study was to assess whether perioperative melatonin decreases the incidence of delirium in older adults undergoing surgical procedures.Methods: A systematic search using PubMed/Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and references of identified articles published in English between January 1990 and October 2017 was performed. Two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts, and then extracted data following a full-text review of included articles with consensus generation and bias assessment. Studies reporting outcomes for melatonin or ramelteon use to prevent delirium in postoperative hospitalized patients (mean age ≥ 50 years) were eligible for inclusion. Data were pooled using a fixed-effects model to generate a forest plot and obtain a summary odds ratio for the outcome of interest (delirium incidence). Cochran’s Q and I²values were used to investigate heterogeneity.Results: Of 335 records screened, 6 studies were selected for the qualitative analysis and 6 were included in the meta-analysis (n = 1155). The mean age of patients in included studies ranged from 59 to 84 years. Patients in intervention groups typically received melatonin or ramelteon at daily doses of two to eight milligrams around cardiothoracic, orthopedic, or hepatic surgeries for one to nine days, starting on the evening before or the day of surgery. The incidence of delirium ranged from 0 to 30% in the intervention groups versus 4–33% in the comparator groups, and was significantly reduced in the melatonin group, with a summary effect of the meta-analysis yielding an odds ratio of 0.63 (95% CI 0.46 to 0.87; 0.006; I² = 72.1%). A one study removed analysis reduced overall odds ratio to 0.310 (95% CI 0.19 to 0.50), while reducing heterogeneity (Cochran’s Q = 0.798, I² = 0.000).Conclusion: Perioperative melatonin reduced the incidence of delirium in older adults in the included studies. While optimal dosing remains an unanswered question, the potential benefit of melatonin and melatonin receptor agonists may make them a reasonable option to use for delirium prevention in older adults undergoing surgical procedures.

Objective. To compare dietary supplement use between student pharmacists and the general population, and assess knowledge, attitudes toward use, and dietary supplement effectiveness; and to explore how student pharmacists view their education on dietary supplements. Methods. Paper questionnaires administered to student pharmacists collected data about their use, knowledge, and attitudes of dietary supplements. Use was compared to the 2007 National Health Interview survey findings. Results. Of 179 students who responded, 52% had used at least one dietary supplement in their lifetime versus 25% in the general population. Students perceived supplement label information as unhelpful, research into supplements inadequate, and supplements non-essential to health. Students thought supplement knowledge was important but their education was inadequate. Conclusion. Dietary supplement use was higher in this sample of student pharmacists than the general population. Student pharmacists had limited knowledge and need more education on dietary supplements.

This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of pharmacist-provided medication therapy management (MTM) services as compared to no MTM services (i.e., standard of care) on outpatient clinical outcomes for patients with diabetes, hypertension, or dyslipidemia. A systematic literature review of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, PsycINFO, Scopus, CINAHL electronic databases, grey literature, websites, and journals, was conducted from 1 January 2005–20 July 2021. The search field contained a combination of keywords and MeSH terms such as: “medication therapy management”, “pharmacist”, “treatment outcomes”. Studies published in United States, included adults ≥18 years old who received at least one pharmacist-provided MTM consultation and at least one group who received no MTM, and reported pre-specified clinical outcomes for diabetes mellitus, hypertension, or dyslipidemia were included. Of 849 studies identified, eight were included (cohort studies = 6, randomized controlled trials = 2). Clinical outcomes improved with MTM interventions, as evidenced by statistically significant changes in at least one of the three chronic conditions in most studies. Improvements were observed for diabetes outcomes (n = 4 studies), hypertension outcomes (n = 4 studies), and dyslipidemia outcomes (n = 3 studies). Overall, this study indicated that pharmacist delivered MTM services (versus no MTM services) can improve clinical outcomes for patients with diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia.

Background: Cancer is increasingly being treated as a chronic disease rather than an acute one-time illness. Additionally, oral anticancer therapies, as opposed to intravenous chemotherapy, are now available for an increasing number of cancer indications. Mobile health (mHealth) apps for use on mobile devices (eg, smartphones or tablets) are designed to help patients with medication adherence, symptom tracking, and disease management. Several previous literature reviews have been conducted regarding mHealth apps for cancer. However, these studies did not address patient preferences for the features of cancer mHealth apps. Objective: The primary aim was to review the scientific literature that describes the features and functions of mHealth apps designed for cancer self-management. Methods: As the purpose of this review was to explore the depth and breadth of research on mHealth app features for cancer self-management, a scoping review methodology was adopted. Four databases were used for this review: PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO. Citation and reference searches were conducted for manuscripts meeting the inclusion criteria. A gray literature search was also conducted. Data extracted from manuscripts included author, title, publication date, study type, sampling type, cancer type, treatment, age of participants, features, availability (free or subscription), design input, and patient preferences. Finally, the features listed for each app were compared, highlighting similarities across platforms as well as features unique to each app. Results: After the removal of duplicates, 522 manuscripts remained for the title and abstract review, with 51 undergoing full-text review. A total of 7 manuscripts (referred to as studies hereafter) were included in the final scoping review. App features described in each study varied from 2 to 11, with a median of 4 features per app. The most reported feature was a symptom or side effect tracker, which was reported in 6 studies. Two apps specified the inclusion of patients and health care providers during the design, while 1 app noted that IT and communications experts provided design input. The utility of the apps for end users was measured in several ways, including acceptability (measuring the end users’ experience), usability (assessing the functionality and performance by observing real users completing tasks), or qualitative data (reports from end users collected from interviews or focus groups). Conclusions: This review explored the literature on cancer mHealth apps. Popular features within these mHealth apps include symptom trackers, cancer education, and medication trackers. However, these apps and features are often developed with little input from patients. Additionally, there is little information regarding patient preferences for the features of existing apps. While the number of cancer-related apps available for download continues to increase, further exploration of patient preferences for app features could result in apps that better meet patient disease self-management needs.