Community pharmacies are increasingly recognised as accessible providers of public health services. Integrating cardiovascular health checks and behaviour change strategies with the community pharmacy vaccination service has the potential to improve population health outcomes. This scoping review aims to identify potential pharmacist-led cardiovascular-related services suitable for such integration, and to explore the acceptability and feasibility of pharmacy-led services among both service users and providers.

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Web of Science were systematically searched for UK-based empirical studies published between January 2013 and December 2024.

Primary studies reporting on pharmacist-led cardiovascular-related interventions (eg, blood pressure monitoring, cholesterol screening, smoking cessation) delivered to adults (≥18 years) in community pharmacy settings and reporting on clinical outcomes, feasibility or acceptability were included.

Data were extracted using a standardised form on Excel and synthesised narratively. Key domains of interest included intervention characteristics, facilitators, barriers, perceived outcomes, delivery mode and intervention content including behavioural change strategies or components to support implementation.

Of 8322 records screened, 53 studies met the inclusion criteria. Cardiovascular-related interventions were broadly feasible and acceptable to both patients and pharmacy staff. High patient satisfaction was attributed to the accessibility and convenience of pharmacy locations, as well as the ability of pharmacy staff to establish rapport during interactions. Facilitators of service delivery included private consultation spaces, structured training and access to digital screening tools (eg, devices for atrial fibrillation detection). Barriers included workload constraints and limited public awareness of pharmacy services. Five studies described successful integration of lifestyle interventions within pharmacy-based settings, but the long-term clinical outcomes produced by the intervention were rarely reported. Patients valued the convenience and trusted relationships with pharmacists, though concerns about privacy were raised. Pharmacists reported the need for clearer clinical protocols, and multidisciplinary support and training to improve their confidence in delivering health checks as part of their routine work.

Community pharmacies offer an optimal setting for integrating cardiovascular-related screening interventions with the vaccination service delivered within community pharmacy. Successful implementation will require attention to the identified facilitators including the quality of staff training, competing priorities and optimisation and utilisation of pharmacy space. Future research should prioritise definitive controlled trials and cost-effectiveness analyses to assess long-term health outcomes. Policy action is also needed to support service integration and expand pharmacists’ public health roles within the wider National Health Service.

Most patients with health conditions necessitating time off work consult in primary care. Offering vocational advice (VA) early within this setting may help them to return to work and reduce sickness absence. Previous research shows the benefits of VA interventions for musculoskeletal pain in primary care, but an intervention for a much broader primary care patient population has yet to be tested. The Work And Vocational advicE feasibility study tested patient identification and recruitment methods, explored participants’ experiences of being invited to the study and their experiences of receiving VA.

A mixed method, single arm feasibility study comprising both quantitative and qualitative analysis of recruitment and participation in the study.

Primary care.

The study included participant follow-up by fortnightly Short Message Service text and 6-week questionnaire. Stop/go criteria focus on recruitment and intervention engagement. The semistructured interviews explored participants’ experiences of recruitment and receipt and engagement with the intervention.

19 participants were recruited (4.3% response rate). Identification of participants via retrospective fit-note searches was reasonably successful (13/19 (68%) identified), recruitment stop/go criteria were met with ≥50% of those eligible and expressing an interest recruited. The stop/go criterion for intervention engagement was met with 16/19 (86%) participants having at least one contact with a vocational support worker. Five participants were interviewed; they reported positive experiences of recruitment and felt the VA intervention was acceptable.

This study demonstrates that delivering VA in primary care is feasible and acceptable. To ensure a future trial is feasible, recruitment strategies and data collection methods require additional refinement.

NCT04543097.

The SupportBack 2 randomised controlled trial (RCT) compared the clinical and cost-effectiveness of an internet intervention supporting self-management versus usual primary care in reducing low back pain (LBP)-related disability. In this study, we aimed to identify and understand key processes and potential mechanisms underlying the impact of the intervention.

This was a nested qualitative process evaluation of the SupportBack 2 RCT (ISRCTN: 14736486 pre-results).

Primary care in the UK (England).

46 trial participants experiencing LBP without indicators of serious spinal pathologies (eg, fractures, infection) took part in telephone interviews at either 3 (n=15), 6 (n=14) or 12 months (n=17) post randomisation. Five physiotherapists who provided telephone support for the internet intervention also took part in telephone interviews.

An internet intervention ‘SupportBack’ supporting self-management of LBP primarily through physical activity and exercise delivered in addition to usual care, with and without physiotherapist telephone support.

Data were analysed thematically, applying a realist logic to develop context-mechanism-outcome configurations.

Four explanatory themes were developed, with five context-mechanism-outcome configurations. Where benefit was reported, SupportBack appeared to work by facilitating a central associative process where participants linked increases in physical activity or exercise with improvements in LBP, then continued to use physical activity or exercise as key regulatory strategies. Participants who reported little or no benefit from the intervention appeared to experience several barriers to this associative process, including negative expectations, prohibitive beliefs about the cause of LBP or functional limitations preventing engagement. Physiotherapists appeared to provide accountability and validation for some; however, the remote telephone support that lacked physical assessment was viewed as limiting its potential value.

Digital interventions targeting physical activity and exercise to support LBP self-management may rely on mechanisms that are easily inhibited in complex, heterogeneous populations. Future research should focus on identifying and removing barriers that may limit the effectiveness of digital self-management support for LBP.