Polypharmacy is widespread among older people, but the adverse outcomes associated with it are unclear. We aim to synthesize current evidence on the adverse health, social, medicines management, and health care utilization outcomes of polypharmacy in older people. A systematic review, of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies, was conducted. Eleven bibliographic databases were searched from 1990 to February 2018. Quality was assessed using AMSTAR (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews). Older people in any health care setting, residential setting, or country. Twenty-six reviews reporting on 230 unique studies were included. Almost all reviews operationalized polypharmacy as medication count, and few examined medication classes or disease states within this. Evidence for an association between polypharmacy and many adverse outcomes, including adverse drug events and disability, was conflicting. The most consistent evidence was found for hospitalization and inappropriate prescribing. No research had explored polypharmacy in the very old (aged ≥85 years), or examined the potential social consequences associated with medication use, such as loneliness and isolation. The literature examining the adverse outcomes of polypharmacy in older people is complex, extensive, and conflicting. Until polypharmacy is operationalized in a more clinically relevant manner, the adverse outcomes associated with it will not be fully understood. Future studies should work toward this approach in the face of rising multimorbidity and population aging.

Socio-economic inequalities are associated with unequal exposure to social, economic and environmental risk factors, which in turn contribute to health inequalities. Understanding the impact of specific public health policy interventions will help to establish causality in terms of the effects on health inequalities. Systematic review methodology was used to identify systematic reviews from high-income countries that describe the health equity effects of upstream public health interventions. Twenty databases were searched from their start date until May 2017. The quality of the included articles was determined using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews tool (AMSTAR). Twenty-nine systematic reviews were identified reporting 150 unique relevant primary studies. The reviews summarised evidence of all types of primary and secondary prevention policies (fiscal, regulation, education, preventative treatment and screening) across seven public health domains (tobacco, alcohol, food and nutrition, reproductive health services, the control of infectious diseases, the environment and workplace regulations). There were no systematic reviews of interventions targeting mental health. Results were mixed across the public health domains; some policy interventions were shown to reduce health inequalities (e.g. food subsidy programmes, immunisations), others have no effect and some interventions appear to increase inequalities (e.g. 20 mph and low emission zones). The quality of the included reviews (and their primary studies) were generally poor and clear gaps in the evidence base have been highlighted. The review does tentatively suggest interventions that policy makers might use to reduce health inequalities, although whether the programmes are transferable between high-income countries remains unclear. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42016025283

Objectives: To systematically review the effectiveness of community pharmacy-delivered interventions for alcohol reduction, smoking cessation and weight management. Design: Systematic review and meta-analyses. 10 electronic databases were searched from inception to May 2014. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies: Study design : randomised and non-randomised controlled trials; controlled before/after studies, interrupted times series. Intervention : any relevant intervention set in a community pharmacy, delivered by the pharmacy team. No restrictions on duration, country, age, or language. Results: 19 studies were included: 2 alcohol reduction, 12 smoking cessation and 5 weight management. Study quality rating: 6 ‘strong’, 4 ‘moderate’ and 9 ‘weak’. 8 studies were conducted in the UK, 4 in the USA, 2 in Australia, 1 each in 5 other countries. Evidence from 2 alcohol-reduction interventions was limited. Behavioural support and/or nicotine replacement therapy are effective and cost-effective for smoking cessation: pooled OR was 2.56 (95% CI 1.45 to 4.53) for active intervention vs usual care. Pharmacy-based interventions produced similar weight loss compared with active interventions in other primary care settings; however, weight loss was not sustained longer term in a range of primary care and commercial settings compared with control. Pharmacy-based weight management interventions have similar provider costs to those delivered in other primary care settings, which are greater than those delivered by commercial organisations. Very few studies explored if and how sociodemographic or socioeconomic variables moderated intervention effects. Insufficient information was available to examine relationships between effectiveness and behaviour change strategies, implementation factors, or organisation and delivery of interventions. Conclusions: Community pharmacy-delivered interventions are effective for smoking cessation, and demonstrate that the pharmacy is a feasible option for weight management interventions. Given the potential reach, effectiveness and associated costs of these interventions, commissioners should consider using community pharmacies to help deliver public health services.

Objectives: To: (1) determine the percentage of the population in England that have access to a community pharmacy within 20 min walk; (2) explore any relationship between the walking distance and urbanity; (3) explore any relationship between the walking distance and social deprivation; and (4) explore any interactions between urbanity, social deprivation and community pharmacy access. Design: This area level analysis spatial study used postcodes for all community pharmacies in England. Each postcode was assigned to a population lookup table and lower super output area (LSOA). The LSOA was then matched to urbanity (urban, town and fringe or village, hamlet and isolated dwellings) and deprivation decile (using the Index of Multiple Deprivation score). Primary outcome measure: Access to a community pharmacy within 20 min walk. Results: Overall, 89.2% of the population is estimated to have access to a community pharmacy within 20 min walk. For urban areas, that is 98.3% of the population, for town and fringe, 79.9% of the population, while for rural areas, 18.9% of the population. For areas of lowest deprivation (deprivation decile 1) 90.2% of the population have access to a community pharmacy within 20 min walk, compared to 99.8% in areas of highest deprivation (deprivation decile 10), a percentage difference of 9.6% (8.2, 10.9). Conclusions: Our study shows that the majority of the population can access a community pharmacy within 20 min walk and crucially, access is greater in areas of highest deprivation— a positive pharmacy care law . More research is needed to explore the perceptions and experiences of people—from various levels of deprivation—around the accessibility of community pharmacy services.

Objectives: (1) To determine the percentage of the population in England that has access to a general practitioner (GP) premises within a 20 min walk (the accessibility); (2) explore the relationship between the walking distance to a GP premises and urbanity and social deprivation and (3) compare accessibility of a GP premises to that of a community pharmacy—and how this may vary by urbanity and social deprivation.Design: This area-level analysis spatial study used postcodes for all GP premises and community pharmacies in England. Each postcode was assigned to a population lookup table and Lower Super Output Area (LSOA). The LSOA was then matched to urbanity (urban, town and fringe, or village, hamlet and isolated dwellings) and deprivation decile (using the Index of Multiple Deprivation score 2010).Primary outcome measure: Living within a 20 min walk of a GP premises.Results: Overall, 84.8% of the population is estimated to live within a 20 min walk of a GP premises: 81.2% in the most affluent areas, 98.2% in the most deprived areas, 94.2% in urban and 19.4% in rural areas. This is consistently lower when compared with the population living within a 20 min walk of a community pharmacy.Conclusions: Our study shows that the vast majority of the population live within a 20 min walk of a GP premises, with higher proportions in the most deprived areas—a positive primary care law. However, more people live within a 20 min walk of a community pharmacy compared with a GP premises, and this potentially has implications for the commissioning of future services from these healthcare providers in England.

Community pharmacies have great potential to deliver services aimed at promoting health and preventing disease, and are well placed in deprived communities. This review of reviews aimed to assess the effectiveness of community pharmacy-delivered public health services and assess how they impact on inequalities in health using PROGRESS-Plus characteristics. Twenty databases were searched from their start date until January 2018. The quality of the included articles was determined using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews tool (AMSTAR 2). Fifteen systematic reviews were identified reporting 157 unique primary studies. There were a number of community pharmacy initiatives with positive intervention effects on health outcomes. These services were predominantly focused on primary disease prevention, and included smoking cessation, weight management programmes, syringe exchange programmes, and inoculation services. This review supports the development of some community pharmacy public health services. At present, little is known how community pharmacy-delivered public health interventions impact on health inequalities. It would be prudent for future studies to address this by explicitly reporting outcomes according to the PROGRESS-Plus framework. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42017056264.