↓ Skip to main content

Pharmacists’ medicines-related interventions for people with intellectual disabilities: a narrative review

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
142 Mendeley
Title
Pharmacists’ medicines-related interventions for people with intellectual disabilities: a narrative review
Published in
International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy, April 2015
DOI 10.1007/s11096-015-0113-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Máire O’Dwyer, Arijana Meštrović, Martin Henman

Abstract

BackgroundPeople with intellectual disabilities (ID) have complex pharmaceutical care needs due to a high prevalence of multimorbidity, a notable degree of polypharmacy and a high risk of adverse drug reactions. Despite this, people with ID often experience significant health disparities compared to the general population. In most developed countries, increasing emphasis on deinstitutionalisation and community integration also means greater utilisation of primary health care services where general practitioners, pharmacists and carers may lack appropriate information about the pharmaceutical needs of this population. Aim of the review To explore what type of pharmaceutical care interventions were being undertaken for people with ID and how pharmacists' contributed to the care of people with ID as part of multidisciplinary teams. Method Systematic searches of the following electronic databases were carried out; CINAHL, Pubmed, Medline, Embase, Cochrane library, Science Direct and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts. Results were limited to the period 1994-2014 using search terms 'learning disabilities', 'intellectual disabilities', 'mental retardation', 'developmental disabilities', 'learning difficulties' and 'pharmacist intervention', 'pharmaceutical care', 'primary care', 'pharmacy' "pharmacists" "pharmacy technicians". Agreement on studies to be included was arrived at by consensus and by using a pre-determined set of inclusion criteria. Due to the heterogeneous nature of the study aims, methods and presentation of study outcomes found, a narrative review was considered appropriate. Results In total, after removal of duplicates, 70 abstracts were identified and screened from the initial search. After screening and consensus agreement, eight articles which met the inclusion criteria were included in the review and were analysed under the following three themes; pharmacist interventions, pharmacists collaboration in provision of care, qualitative studies relating to patient, carers, and pharmacist views on care of people with ID. Conclusions The limited evidence available in the literature suggests that pharmacists can make positive interventions in relation to the quality of the medication use process, in collaboration with other healthcare professionals, carers and patients with ID. However, further research will be required to increase the evidence base with regard to the benefits of providing pharmaceutical care to patients with intellectual disability and to inform future policy and planning.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 142 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 141 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 22 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 13%
Student > Bachelor 17 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 10%
Student > Master 10 7%
Other 28 20%
Unknown 32 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 21%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 23 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 9%
Psychology 11 8%
Social Sciences 9 6%
Other 22 15%
Unknown 34 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 July 2015.
All research outputs
#13,333,936
of 22,800,560 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
#619
of 1,079 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#126,457
of 265,147 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
#16
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,800,560 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,079 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 265,147 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.