[41] This was compared to screening of walk-in participants. The remaining study involved only targeted screening of at-risk participants; patients with high risk of osteoporosis were identified from a health centre

and referred to the pharmacy by their physician.[63] Eleven studies[23, 32, 34, 38, 50-53, 60, 70, 71] involved the use of questionnaires or risk assessment forms alone to determine participants’ risk of the disease in focus. In a further 22 studies, the screening intervention primarily used medical equipment to make physiological measurements. For example, spirometry was used to screen for respiratory disease,[26] and bone mineral density (BMD) measurements for osteoporosis.[22, 31, 42, 45, 59, 61-65, 67] The remaining 17 studies used both medical equipment and questionnaires. this website In four of these, all participants were screened using both questionnaires and medical equipment[33, 39, 47, Ensartinib 49] while in 13, questionnaires were used to gauge participants’ risk of the target disease, followed by further tests using medical equipment for those participants considered to be at high risk.[24, 25, 27, 28, 35, 36, 40, 42, 58, 63, 64, 66, 68] Crockett et al. 2008[27] and Krass et al. 2007[68] compared groups of participants that were screened with questionnaires only, to those screened with both questionnaires and medical equipment. Thirty (60%) of the included studies involved a form of staff training and/or education about

screening tools and the target disease. This included training in the use of equipment, e.g. spirometry or BMD measurement, use of screening questionnaires, e.g. the Men’s Health Risk Assessment Tool (MHRAT) to assess men’s health,[53] or general training about the disease in question or patient counselling. Twenty-eight studies (56%) reported the provision of education and/or counselling to participants as part of the intervention.

This generally included a Palmatine written or verbal overview of the disease being screened for and information about disease risk factors, disease prevention and management. The duration of follow-up for the 21 studies reporting this ranged from 24–48 hours in a chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) screening study[25] to 12 months in another study about sleep disorders.[50] In nine of those, follow-up was an integral part of the intervention, e.g. to reiterate advice and reinforce education or confirm diagnosis. In the other 12 studies, follow-up was used to assess the effects of the intervention (i.e. to collect outcome data). This involved collecting data about those referred for further investigation, evaluating participants’ adherence to pharmacist interventions, or determining self-initiated or provider-initiated changes. A summary of the outcomes reported in each study is given in Table S2. Forty-seven studies (94%) reported the proportions of participants who screened positively either for disease risk factors or the disease itself.