Does Collaboration between General Practitioners and Pharmacists Improve Risk Factors for Cardiovascular Disease and Diabetes? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Kanika Chaudhri, Gabriella Caleres, Samantha Saunders, Peter Michail, Gian Luca Di Tanna, Thomas Lung, Hueiming Liu, Rohina Joshi

Journal: Global heart 2023;18(1):7

PMID: 36846722

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether inter-professional, bidirectional collaboration between general practitioners (GPs) and pharmacists has an impact on improving cardiovascular risk outcomes among patients in the primary care setting. It also aimed to understand the different types of collaborative care models used.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman random effects meta-analyses of randomised control trials (RCTs) in inter-professional bidirectional collaboration between GP and pharmacists assessing a change of patient cardiovascular risk in the primary care setting.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, CINAHL and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, scanned reference lists of relevant studies, hand searched key journals and key papers until August 2021.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Twenty-eight RCTs were identified. Collaboration was associated with significant reductions in systolic and diastolic blood pressure (23 studies, 5,620 participants) of -6.42 mmHg (95% confidence interval (95%CI) -7.99 to -4.84) and -2.33 mmHg (95%CI -3.76 to -0.91), respectively. Changes in other cardiovascular risk factors included total cholesterol (6 studies, 1,917 participants) -0.26 mmol/L (95%CI -0.49 to -0.03); low-density lipoprotein (8 studies, 1,817 participants) -0.16 mmol/L (95%CI -0.63 to 0.32); high-density lipoprotein (7 studies, 1,525 participants) 0.02 mmol/L (95%CI -0.02 to 0.07). Reduction in haemoglobin A1c (HbA1C) (10 studies, 2,025 participants), body mass index (8 studies, 1,708 participants) and smoking cessation (1 study, 132 participants) was observed with GP-pharmacist collaboration. Meta-analysis was not conducted for these changes. Various models of collaborative care included verbal communication (via phone calls or face to face), and written communication (emails, letters). We found that co-location was associated with positive changes in cardiovascular risk factors.

CONCLUSION

Although it is clear that collaborative care is ideal compared to usual care, greater details in the description of the collaborative model of care in studies is required for a core comprehensive evaluation of the different models of collaboration.

Copyright: © 2023 The Author(s).

Address: The George Institute for Global Health, UNSW, Sydney, Australia.; Department of Clinical Sciences, Center for Primary Health Care Research, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden.; Gosford Hospital, Central Coast Local Health District, Australia.; General Surgery, St Vincent's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.; University of Applied Sciences and Arts of Southern Switzerland, Switzerland.; Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, NSW, Australia.; Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Australia.; School of Population Health, UNSW, Sydney, Australia.; The George Institute for Global Health, New Delhi, India.
Bant logo

© Copyright 2026, Nutrition Evidence

NED wishes to thank the following organisations for their support:

We use cookies to improve your experience and analyze site traffic with Google Analytics. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more.