Introduction: The development of technology to support medication management and adherence among older adults is rising. Many of these technologies offer diverse features, which add complexity when making a choice. Evidence-based decision aids can inform decision-making in such situations. To inform the development of such a decision aid, it is necessary to review the literature on the development and validation of decision aids that impact medication adherence. Therefore, this study aims to review the available literature on digital decision aids that examine the impact on medication adherence and investigate their features, development, and validation processes. Methods: Adopting the Arksey and O’Malley scoping review framework, a comprehensive search was conducted using PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, IPA and Scopus, using four key concepts: medication adherence, decision aids/tools, older adults, and software/technology. Eligibility criteria included studies that enrolled older adults with a mean/median age of 65 years, published protocols for studies that supported decision-making, published in the English language, and examined and reported the development and/or validation and/or evaluation of digital decision aids. Results: Our search identified 3526 records. After removing 947 duplicates, 2579 records underwent title and abstract screening, of which 726 proceeded to full-text screening. Following full-text screening, one research protocol met all eligibility criteria and was included in the review. An additional 16 systematic reviews were examined to identify potentially relevant studies from their reference lists; however, none of the studies identified through this supplementary screening met the eligibility criteria. Conclusion: The limited number of eligible studies shows a substantial gap in the literature on the development and validation of digital decision aids that support medication adherence among older adults. Further research in this field is needed to develop and validate evidence-based and user-centered digital decision aids for this population.

Introduction: Growing evidence suggests that non-physician providers (NPPs) can effectively and safely manage warfarin therapy. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate warfarin management by NPPs compared to usual medical care (UMC) in ambulatory patients. Methods: We conducted a systematic search of PubMed (MEDLINE), Ovid Embase, Ovid International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Scopus, CINAHL (EBSCO), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from inception to January 2024. Studies were included if they were randomized controlled trials or quasi-experimental designs comparing warfarin management across professions. Two independent reviewers performed title and abstract screening, full-text review, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. Results were pooled using random effects models. Results: Of 19 122 citations identified, 6 met the inclusion criteria. NPPs included pharmacists (4), nurse practitioners (1), and multidisciplinary teams (1). Meta-analysis showed no significant difference in time spent in therapeutic range (TTR) (mean difference [MD] 1.64%; 95% confidence interval [CI]-1.86 to 5.16, I2 = 0%)) for NPPs vs UMC. There were no differences in thrombosis (relative risk [RR] 1.23; 95% CI 0.36 to 4.23, I2 = 0%), hemorrhage (RR = 1.07; 95% CI 0.44 to 2.63, I2 = 0%), mortality (RR = 0.94; 95% CI 0.33 to 2.67, I2 = 0%), or patient satisfaction (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.56; 95% CI -0.04 to 1.15, I2 = 85%). Conclusion: NPP management resulted in similar TTR as UMC. Due to few thromboembolic and hemorrhagic events, more studies are needed to determine the effects of NPP warfarin management on clinical outcomes.

Frailty among older adults heightens their risk of negative health outcomes, and medication use plays a major role in this increased vulnerability. Various aspects of medication use elevate the risk of poor outcomes in individuals with frailty. The current scoping review was designed to explore medication use in older adults with frailty in primary care, focusing on the prevalence of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs), polypharmacy, medication adherence, and their role in contributing to adverse drug events. This scoping review was conducted using the Arksey and O’Malley, supplemented by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. A search of the literature was conducted from inception to November 2023 in Ovid EMBASE, PubMed (MEDLINE), Scopus, EBSCOhost CINAHL, and Ovid International Pharmaceutical Abstracts. Studies which met the eligibility criteria included older adults with frailty (≥65 years) living at home, defined frailty criteria, and assessment of medication use. Out of the 4726 studies screened, 223 were included, conducted across 39 countries. Frailty prevalence varied widely from 0.9% to 89.2%. Polypharmacy (5–9 medications) and hyper-polypharmacy (≥10 medications) were notably more common among individuals with frailty, with polypharmacy rates ranging from 1.3% to 96.4%. Twelve studies reported PIM prevalence among individuals with varying levels of frailty, ranging from 2.4% to 95.9%. This scoping review highlights the challenges and complexities involved in understanding the relationship between medication use and frailty in older adults.

INTRODUCTION:Real-world evidence (RWE) is increasingly used to assess and make regulatory decisions on health technologies. However, its application in healthcare payer decision-making is less well-known. OBJECTIVES:The objectives of this study were to (i) review the recent literature on how RWE has been used by healthcare payers, (ii) highlight barriers that limit the use of RWE in payer decision making, and (iii) explore how RWE has been used in various funding arrangements between payers and manufacturers. The benefits of utilizing RWE are also discussed. METHODS:A scoping review was conducted on articles published between 2014 and 2025 in PubMed (Medline), OVID EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. Eligible articles were those written in English that discussed the use of real-world evidence among healthcare payers/decision-makers for health technology reimbursement decisions. RESULTS:Nineteen articles were selected for full-text review based on the inclusion criteria. The review highlighted payers' interest in incorporating RWE into funding and reimbursement decisions to address uncertainty in the performance of new health technologies. However, a lack of standards for collecting, analyzing, and reporting RWE limits its use. Little is known about how RWE is used in reimbursement decisions since contractual arrangements between payers and manufacturers are confidential. CONCLUSIONS:Although payers are interested in using RWE to inform funding and reimbursement decisions, there are concerns regarding the scientific rigor used to generate such evidence. Having more insight into the contractual arrangements between payers and manufacturers would help to better understand how RWE informs these agreements.

Background Medication management capacity is a crucial component of medication adherence, particularly among older adults. Various factors, including physical abilities, cognitive functions, sensory capabilities, motivational, and environmental factors, influence older adults' ability to manage medications. It is, therefore, crucial to identify appropriate tools that allow clinicians to determine which factors may impact medication management capacity and, consequently, nonadherence to medications. Purpose 1)To identify tools that measure physical, cognitive, sensory (vision, hearing, touch), motivational, and environmental barriers to medication self-management in older adults, and 2) to understand the extent to which these tools assess various barriers. Methods The scoping review was conducted using Arksey and O'Malley's scoping review framework and the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews checklist. In June 2022, the relevant literature was identified by searching PubMed (MEDLINE), Ovid Embase, Ovid IPA, EBSCOhost CINAHL, APA PsycINFO, and Scopus. Results and discussion In total, 7235 studies were identified. Following the removal of duplicates, 4607 articles were screened by title and abstract, of which 4253 did not meet the inclusion criteria. Three reviewers reviewed the full texts of the remaining 354 articles; among them, 41 articles, 4 theses and 1 conference abstract met the inclusion criteria. From the included studies, 44 tools were identified that measured a combination of physical, cognitive, sensory, motivational, and environmental barriers ( n =19) or only cognition ( n =13), vision ( n =5), environmental factors ( n =3), auditory ( n =1), and motivational factors ( n =1). The review also examined the psychometric properties of the identified tools and found that most of them had reported validity and reliability data. Several tools have demonstrated promise in assessing a combination of barriers with validity and reliability. These tools include the Self-Medication Assessment Tool (SMAT), ManageMed Screening (MMS), Self-Medication Risk Assessment Tool (RAT), HOME-Rx revised, and Medication Management Ability Assessment (MMAA). Conclusion This scoping review identified 44 validated tools to measure various challenges that older adults encounter with medication management. However, no tool measures all five barriers (physical, cognitive, sensory, motivational, and environmental) to medication-taking at home. Therefore, utilizing a combination of tools would be most appropriate to measure these different aspects comprehensively. Further research is needed to develop a new comprehensive tool that simultaneously measures various barriers to medication self-management.

Introduction: Older adults with dementia who are on multiple medications are more vulnerable to the use of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs), which can significantly increase the risk of adverse events and drug-related problems. PIMs use is prevalent and varies among older adults with dementia or cognitive impairment (CI) attending memory clinics. However, the prevalence of PIMs, polypharmacy, and hyper-polypharmacy among older adults with dementia or CI who are attending memory clinics is not well understood. We will conduct a systematic review and meta-analyses to examine the overall estimate of the prevalence of the PIMs, polypharmacy, and hyper-polypharmacy use among older adults attending memory clinics, with dementia or CI. The secondary objective of this study will be to compile a list of commonly implicated PIMs and to investigate factors that may be associated with using PIMs in this population. Methods: Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Scopus, Cochrane library, EBSCOhost CINAHL, and Ovid International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (IPA) will be systematically searched by a researcher (R.S.) with the help of a librarian (C.C.). All databases will be searched from inception to May 05, 2023. Cross-sectional, cohort, randomized clinical trials, quasi-experimental, and case-control studies will be included if they assess PIM’s use among older adults with dementia and/or CI. A step-by-step guide by Pai et al. [Natl Med J India. 2004;17(2):86–95] will be followed when conducting this systematic review (S.R.). The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) checklist will be followed for reporting this SR. Conclusion: The findings from this SR/MA will identify the pooled prevalence of PIMs, providing a more precise estimate of the true prevalence of the PIMs, polypharmacy, hyper-polypharmacy in older adults with dementia or CI who are attending memory clinics at primary, secondary, or tertiary healthcare settings by considering the results of multiple studies.

Background: The opioid crisis is a worldwide public health concern. In North America, evidence suggests that the increase in opioid prescriptions correlates with the observed increase in opioid-related mortality and morbidity. Pharmacists are in a strategic position to promote effective opioid stewardship as they have a central role on healthcare teams. However, in many contexts, pharmacists do not have a harmonized scope of practice and no standardized opioid stewardship approach has been implemented. Objectives: A scoping review will be conducted to identify and summarize evidence on the role of pharmacists in opioid stewardship and identify areas for future study. Methods: The scoping review will be conducted according to the methodological framework proposed by Arksey and O?Malley, which was further modified by the Joanna Briggs Institute. Six databases will be searched which include PubMed, Embase, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and APA PsycInfo. Project impact: The findings of this review will identify opioid stewardship activities that can contribute towards reducing the impact of the opioid crisis. Additionally, it will provide foundational strategies to promote policy level change and foster a harmonized scope of practice. This review has the potential to inform future research, impact pharmacy practice, and drive policy change.

Background: Medication non-adherence is a leading cause of non-optimal disease management, resulting in poor health outcomes, poor quality of life, and increased healthcare costs. Smart oral multidose dispensing systems (SOMDS) are being developed to address non-adherence; however, little is known about their integration into daily use by patients. Methods: Using Arksey and O’Malley’s scoping review framework, relevant literature was searched for in electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and Scopus). Observational and interventional studies reporting the integration and impact on adherence from SOMDS in adults ≥18 years and published after 1960 were included. Results: Thirteen articles including one case study, 8 cohort studies, and 4 randomized trials were eligible. SOMDS included smart blister packaging, automated dispensers, and electronic medication trays. The number of medications dispensed per SOMDS was one (n = 3), >1 (n = 2), placebo (n = 1) and not reported (n = 7). Reported outcomes included impact on medication adherence (n = 3), integration (n = 2) and both parameters (n = 8). Conclusion: Although most studies reported that SOMDS appear usable, there was significant variability in the SOMDS types, patient populations, medication adherence definitions, and measurements; impacting the interpretation of results. Future studies should be designed to address effectiveness of SOMDS on medication adherence in patients with multi-drug therapy and the utilization of real-time adherence data for informing clinical decision making.

Background: A busy pharmacy workload may limit a pharmacist's ability to meet the needs of vaccine-willing patients and also contribute to missed opportunities to engage with vaccine hesitant individuals. Opportunities for pharmacy technicians to support vaccination services may play a role in addressing increasing patient vaccination needs. Purpose: This research aims to review the role of pharmacy technicians in vaccination services that is supported by pharmacy practice research to date. Methods: In compliance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses protocols, systematic searches were performed in PubMed, Embase, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Scopus, and CINAHL. Articles published through June 2020, in French, English, and Spanish, were screened for eligibility. Two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts for inclusion. Data extraction of included study methodologies and results was performed by one reviewer and verified by a second reviewer. Results: A total of 656 records were identified through the search of published literature. Full-text screening of 145 records identified 14 articles for inclusion. Most articles evaluated emerging pharmacy technician roles in patient screening (n = 8, 53%) and vaccine administration (n = 5, 36%). Implementation of both emerging roles demonstrated positive patient outcomes (n = 10, 72%). Screening activities were complicated by the complexity of the role, as well as its potential to increase overall time spent on vaccination services. Pharmacists and technicians advocated for accredited vaccine administration training owing to consistent benefits in pharmacy workflow efficiency, pharmacist clinical time, and pharmacy technician job satisfaction. Conclusion: This review supports the effective deployment of pharmacy technicians in delivering vaccination services. Despite pharmacy technician vaccine administration roles being highly regulated, professional advocacy by pharmacists and technicians can use the advantageous training, workflow, and patient outcomes benefits presented in this review. Early adopters of professional practice advancements for pharmacy technician vaccine administration may expand vaccination service capacity efficiently and safely, thereby reaching more patients. (C) 2022 American Pharmacists Association (R). Published by Elsevier Inc.

Objective To identify differences in efficacy between vision-based treatments for improving visual acuity (VA) of the amblyopic eye in persons aged 4–17 years old.Data sources Ovid Embase, PubMed (Medline), the Cochrane Library, Vision Cite and Scopus were systematically searched from 1975 to 17 June 2020.Methods Two independent reviewers screened search results for randomised controlled trials of vision-based amblyopia treatments that specified change in amblyopic eye VA (logMAR) as the primary outcome measure. Quality was assessed via risk of bias and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations).Results Of the 3346 studies identified, 36 were included in a narrative synthesis. A random effects meta-analysis (five studies) compared the efficacy of binocular treatments versus patching: mean difference −0.03 logMAR; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.04 (p<0.001), favouring patching. An exploratory study-level regression (18 studies) showed no statistically significant differences between vision-based treatments and a reference group of 2–5 hours of patching. Age, sample size and pre-randomisation optical treatment were not statistically significantly associated with changes in amblyopic eye acuity. A network meta-analysis (26 studies) comparing vision-based treatments to patching 2–5 hours found one statistically significant comparison, namely, the favouring of a combination of two treatment arms comparing combination and binocular treatments, against patching 2–5 hours: standard mean difference: 2.63; 95% CI 1.18 to 4.09. However, this result was an indirect comparison calculated from a single study. A linear regression analysis (17 studies) found a significant relationship between adherence and effect size, but the model did not completely fit the data: regression coefficient 0.022; 95% CI 0.004 to 0.040 (p=0.02).Conclusion We found no clinically relevant differences in treatment efficacy between the treatments included in this review. Adherence to the prescribed hours of treatment varied considerably and may have had an effect on treatment success.

Background and Objective The use of continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) for renal support has increased substantially in critically ill children compared with intermittent modalities owing to its preferential effects on hemodynamic stability. With the expanding role of CRRT, the quantification of extracorporeal clearance and the effect on primary pharmacokinetic parameters is of the utmost importance. Within this review, we aimed to summarize the current state of the literature and compare published pharmacokinetic analyses of commonly used medications in children receiving CRRT to those who are not. Methods A systematic search of the literature within electronic databases PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was conducted. Published studies that were included contained relevant information on the use of commonly administered medications to children, from neonates to adolescents, receiving CRRT. Pharmacokinetic parameters that were analyzed included volume of distribution, total clearance, extracorporeal clearance, area under the curve, and elimination half-life. Information regarding CRRT circuit, flow rates, and membrane components was analyzed to investigate differences in pharmacokinetics between each modality. Results Forty-five studies met the final inclusion criteria within this systematic review, totaling 833 pediatric patients, with 586 receiving CRRT. Antimicrobials were the most common pharmacological class represented within the literature, representing 81% (35/43) of studies analyzed. Children receiving CRRT largely had similar volume of distribution and total clearance to critically ill children not receiving CRRT, suggesting reno-protective dose adjustments may lead to subtherapeutic dosing regimens in these patients. Overall, there was a tendency for hydrophilic agents, with a low protein binding to undergo elevated total clearance in these children. However, results should be interpreted with caution because of the large variability amongst patient populations and heterogeneity with CRRT modalities, flow rates, and use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation within studies. This review was able to identify that variation in solute removal, or CRRT modalities, properties (i.e., flow rates), and membrane composition, may have differing effects on the pharmacokinetics of commonly administered medications. Conclusions The current state of the literature regarding medications administered to children receiving CRRT largely focuses on antimicrobials. Significant gaps remain with other commonly used medications such as sedatives and analgesics. Overall reporting of patient clinical characteristics, CRRT settings, and circuit composition was poor, with only 10% of articles including all relevant information to assess the impact of CRRT on total clearance. Changes in pharmacokinetics because of CRRT often required higher than labeled doses, suggesting renally adjusted or reno-protective doses may lead to subtherapeutic dosing regimens. A thorough understanding of the interplay between patient, drug, and CRRT-circuit factors are required to ensure adequate delivery of dosing regimens to this vulnerable population.

Background: In North America, although pharmacists are obligated to ensure prescribed medications are appropriate, information about a patient's reason for use is not a required component of a legal prescription. The benefits of prescribers including the reason for use on prescriptions is evident in the current literature. However, it is not standard practice to share this information with pharmacists. Objective: Our aim was to characterize the research on how including the reason for use on a prescription impacts pharmacists. Methods: We performed an interdisciplinary scoping review, searching literature in the fields of health care, informatics, and engineering. The following databases were searched between December 2018 and January 2019: PubMed, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (IPA), and EMBASE. Results: A total of 3912 potentially relevant articles were identified, with 9 papers meeting the inclusion criteria. The studies used different terminology (eg, indication, reason for use) and a wide variety of study methodologies, including prospective and retrospective observational studies, randomized controlled trials, and qualitative interviews and focus groups. The results suggest that including the reason for use on a prescription can help the pharmacist catch more errors, reduce the need to contact prescribers, support patient counseling, impact communication, and improve patient safety. Reasons that may prevent prescribers from adding the reason for use information are concerns about workflow and patient privacy. Conclusions: More research is needed to understand how the reason for use information should be provided to pharmacists. In the limited literature to date, there is a consensus that the addition of this information to prescriptions benefits patient safety and enables pharmacists to be more effective. Future research should use an implementation science or theory-based approach to improve prescriber buy-in and, consequently, adoption.

ABSTRACTWhat research has been done to characterize the outcomes of disciplinary action or fitness-to-practice cases for regulated health professionals?To answer this research question, relevant publications were identified in PubMed, Ovid EMBASE, CINAHL via EBSCOhost, and Scopus. Included papers focused on reviews of regulatory body disciplinary action for regulated health professionals.Of 108 papers that were included, 84 studied reasons for discipline, 68 studied penalties applied, and 89 studied characteristics/predictors of discipline. Most were observational studies that used administrative data such as regulatory body discipline cases. Studies were published between 1990–2020, with two-thirds published from 2010–2020. Most research has focused on physicians (64%), nurses (10%), multiple health professionals (8.3%), dentists (6.5%) and pharmacists (5.5%). Most research has originated from the United States (53%), United Kingdom (16%), Australia (9.2%), and Canada (6.5%). Characteristics that were reviewed included: gender, age, years in practice, practice specialty, license type/profession, previous disciplinary action, board certification, and performance on licensing examinations.As most research has focused on physicians and has originated from the United States, more research on other professions and jurisdictions is needed. Lack of standardization in disciplinary processes and definitions used to categorize reasons for discipline is a barrier to comparison across jurisdictions and professions. Future research on characteristics and predictors should be used to improve equity, support practitioners, and decrease disciplinary action.

BACKGROUND:Ayahuasca is a psychotropic drink made from the Amazonian vine Banisteriopsis caapi. Active components include beta-carboline alkaloids and the hallucinogen N-N-dimethyltryptamine (DMT). This review aimed to identify and summarize the literature on the safety and effectiveness of ayahuasca among recreational users. METHOD:A comprehensive literature search was done on November 1, 2019 in the following six databases: PubMed(MEDLINE), Ovid Embase, Ovid International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, LILACS, Scopus, and Web of Science. Articles were included if they were original research published in English, Spanish, or Portuguese, among human participants using oral ayahuasca for neuropsychiatric effects. Chemical or pharmacological analyses, brain imaging studies, and studies examining the use of ayahuasca within a religious context were excluded. RESULTS:5750 unique titles were identified through the database searches, with an additional 19 titles identified through manual searches. Ultimately, 39 met all the criteria for inclusion. Articles were organized into 4 themes: (1) Case reports and case series; (2) The use of ayahuasca for depression or grief; (3) The use of ayahuasca and other psychiatric or neuropsychological outcomes; and (4) Studies examining ayahuasca use and physiologic outcomes. Ayahuasca use is associated with a risk of both psychiatric and non-psychiatric events including hallucinations, agitation or aggression, vomiting, seizure, and rhabdomyolysis. Five fatalities have been reported in the literature following ayahuasca use. Open-label studies assessing ayahuasca use in depression found favorable results persisting across 21 days. Ayahuasca was also found to influence the MINDSENS scale for mindfulness, with mixed results observed for impact of ayahuasca on cognitive function and creativity, and benefits observed for measures of self-acceptance and overall wellbeing. CONCLUSIONS:To date, evidence on benefits for the management of depression, anxiety, and other mental health disorders is mixed, with some evidence suggesting improvements in mindfulness measures and creativity that are generally short-lived, and multiple case reports suggesting the potential for harm and interactions.

Comprehensive yet efficient search methods are essential for any systematic or scoping review. This article outlines the stages of development of a systematic search methodology for a scoping review within the library and information science (LIS) literature. The effectiveness of the database search strategies (LISTA, LISA, ERIC, Scopus, Web of Science) and supplemental search techniques are measured through a retrospective analysis of performance metrics. Findings show that for research topics limited to the library setting, it may be more effective to search fewer databases (LISTA and Scopus only) for peer reviewed journal articles and allot more time to alternate search techniques such as web searching to identify non-journal literature. The article provides an evidence-based, methodological approach to developing a systematic search plan, unique to LIS researchers, that accounts for time and resource needs.

Science is an essential social institution and a building block in advancing human societies. At the core of scientific discovery and problem solving is innovation to improve the human condition, within and beyond the institutions of higher education that shape scientific minds. Research in any field, beginning in undergraduate education, is fundamentally about information—finding, understanding, generating, discussing, influencing, contradicting, contextualizing, disproving, and communicating it; the ability to do so generally referred to as information literacy. Parallel to this, everyday life increasingly requires navigating an overwhelming amount of complex scientific information, and misinformation.

Introduction: Persons with intellectual disabilities (ID) often have complex health needs due to the development of multiple comorbidities. Given the higher associated use of problematic medications, such as antipsychotics, and polypharmacy, persons with ID may be particularly vulnerable to adverse side effects. With their medication expertise, pharmacists have the potential to address medication related challenges experienced by this population. Objective: Explore what is known about the care pharmacists provide to persons with ID. Design: Following Arksey and O'Malley's 5-stage framework for scoping reviews, searches of the PubMed (MEDLINE), Ovid EMBASE, Ovid International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Scopus and APA PsycINFO databases were conducted in January 2019 with no limits on publication date. Studies of participants diagnosed with ID or healthcare providers/caregivers of persons with ID that referenced a pharmacist care intervention were included. Studies with non-human populations and editorials, commentaries, letters to the editor or discussion papers were excluded. Results: Twenty-six studies were included in the review. Seventy-six pharmacist care interventions were identified in cognitive pharmacy services (n = 46); educational and advisory services (n = 20); and medication prescription processing (n = 10). Fifty-one outcomes were referenced including drug-related interventions (n = 14), drug related problems (n = 9), cost/time-effectiveness (n = 7), secondary symptoms (n = 6), other outcomes (n = 5), general medication usage (n = 4), caregiver and healthcare team satisfaction levels (n = 3), and educational/knowledge (n = 3). Conclusion: Pharmacists perform a variety of health care services to persons with ID but the impact of these interventions cannot be accurately measured due to a lack of: 1) universal definitions for ID; 2) reporting of multifactorial conditions contributing to a spectrum of ID severity; and 3) standardized reporting of ID-specific outcomes. Addressing these gaps is necessary for the development of a comprehensive evidence base regarding pharmacist involvement for medication challenges in persons with ID.