This scoping review aims to determine the factors affecting the effective implementation of HMR.
Data Sources:
The PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) and Arksey and O’Malley’s method act as the groundwork in guiding this scoping review. Three electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science) were systematically searched from inception to 31 March 2025 to identify relevant articles. Search terms included combinations of keywords related to “Home Medication Review,” “Home Medicine Review,” and “Home Care Pharmacy Service” using Boolean operators “OR.”
Study Selection and Data Extraction:
Studies were included if they examined factors influencing the implementation of HMR services. Only articles published in English with accessible full texts were included. Extracted data were analyzed thematically, and a concept map was developed to summarize these factors.
Data synthesis:
A total of 261 articles were identified, and after removing duplicates, 227 were screened for eligibility. 42 studies met the inclusion criteria. Nine key themes were identified and mapped to the WHO health system building blocks. Policy and program structure, as well as patient awareness and engagement being the most frequently reported. Most included studies were conducted in Australia.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, identifying and addressing these interrelated factors can guide policymaking as well as strategy development to enhance the effectiveness, accessibility, and sustainability of HMR programs.
GyllenstenHFullerJMÖstbringMJ.Commentary: how person-centred is pharmaceutical care?Int J Clin Pharm. 2022;44(1):270-275. doi:10.1007/s11096-021-01332-0
2.
SundusASellappansRPinTM.Informing policy makers in developing countries: practices and limitations of geriatric home medication review in Malaysia-a qualitative inquiry. Asian Pac J Trop Med. 2024;17(1):21-29. doi:10.4103/apjtm.apjtm_614_23
3.
ChandrasekharDJosephEGhaffoorFAThomasHM.Role of pharmacist led home medication review in community setting and the preparation of medication list. Clin Epidemiol Glob Health. 2019;7(1):66-70. doi:10.1016/j.cegh.2018.01.002
4.
LauCLLHorCYOngST, et al. Home medication management problems and associated factors among psychiatric patients using home care pharmacy services at government hospitals in western Malaysia. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022;22(1):726. doi:10.1186/s12913-022-08069-0
5.
SundusAPinTMSellappansR.What do older adults and their caregivers in Malaysia think of home medication review? a qualitative inquiry. Malays J Med Heal Sci. 2022;18(1):99-104.
6.
ChenTF.Pharmacist-led home medicines review and residential medication management review: the Australian model. Drugs Aging. 2016;33(3):199-204. doi:10.1007/s40266-016-0357-2
7.
OngKYCheenMHHChngJSG, et al. Effectiveness of a multidisciplinary home-based medication review program in reducing healthcare utilization among older adult Singaporeans. Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2017;17(2):302-307. doi:10.1111/ggi.12706
8.
McCormickPChennellsRColemanBBatesI.The outcome of domiciliary medication reviews and their impact: a systematic review. Int J Pharm Pract. 2020;28(5):417-427. doi:10.1111/ijpp.12649
9.
AhnJParkJEAnthonyCBurkeM.Understanding, benefits and difficulties of home medicines review - patients’ perspectives. Aust Fam Physician. 2015;44(4):249-253.
10.
CarterSRMolesRJWhiteLChenTF.Consumers willingness to use a medication management service: the effect of medication-related worry and the social influence of the general practitioner. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2013;9(4):431-445. doi:10.1016/j.sapharm.2012.07.001
11.
CarterSRMolesRWhiteLChenTF.The impact of patients’ perceptions of the listening skills of the pharmacist on their willingness to re-use home medicines reviews: a structural equation model. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2015;11(2):163-175. doi:10.1016/j.sapharm.2014.07.002
12.
RosliMRWuDBCNeohCFKaruppannanM.Economic evaluation of home medication review by community pharmacists (HMR-CP) for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). J Med Econ. 2021;24(1):730-740. doi:10.1080/13696998.2021.1889573
13.
MunnZPetersMDJSternCTufanaruCMcArthurAAromatarisE.Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):143. doi:10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x
14.
TriccoACLillieEZarinW, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467-473. doi:10.7326/M18-0850
15.
ArkseyHO’MalleyL.Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19-32. doi:10.1080/1364557032000119616
16.
BajorekBLeMayKGunnKArmourC.The potential role for a pharmacist in a multidisciplinary general practitioner super clinic. Australas Med J. 2015;8(2):52-63. doi:10.4066/AMJ.2015.2278
17.
BellJSWhiteheadPAslaniPMcLachlanAJChenTF.Drug-related problems in the community setting: pharmacists’ findings and recommendations for people with mental illnesses. Clin Drug Investig. 2006;26(7):415-425. doi:10.2165/00044011-200626070-00003
CarterSRMolesRWhiteLChenTF.Exploring patients’ motivation to participate in Australia’s home medicines review program. Int J Clin Pharm. 2012;34(4):658-666. doi:10.1007/s11096-012-9661-z
20.
CarterSRMolesRWhiteLChenTF.Patients’ willingness to use a pharmacist-provided medication management service: the influence of outcome expectancies and communication efficacy. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2012;8(6):487-498. doi:10.1016/j.sapharm.2012.01.002
21.
CostaDVanCAbbottPKrassI.Investigating general practitioner engagement with pharmacists in home medicines review. J Interprof Care. 2015;29(5):469-475. doi:10.3109/13561820.2015.1012253
22.
CzarniakPHattinghLSimTFParsonsRWrightBSunderlandB.Home medicines reviews and residential medication management reviews in western Australia. Int J Clin Pharm. 2020;42(2):567-578. doi:10.1007/s11096-020-01001-8
23.
DeidunDAliMMaddenAO’BrienM.Evaluation of a home medicines review program at an aboriginal medical service in the northern territory. J Pharm Pract Res. 2019;49(5):486-492. doi:10.1002/jppr.1571
24.
DhillonAKHattinghHLStaffordAHotiK.General practitioners’ perceptions on home medicines reviews: a qualitative analysis. BMC Fam Pract. 2015;16(1):16. doi:10.1186/s12875-015-0227-8
25.
DuWGnjidicDPearsonSA, et al. Patterns of high-risk prescribing and other factors in relation to receipt of a home medicines review: a prospective cohort investigation among adults aged 45 years and over in Australia. BMJ Open. 2019;9(2):e027305. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027305
26.
LeeCYGeorgeJElliottRAChapmanCBStewartK.Exploring medication risk among older residents in supported residential services: a cross-sectional study. J Pharm Pract Res. 2011;41(2):98-101. doi:10.1002/j.2055-2335.2011.tb00673.x
27.
NairDGreenJAMarraCA.Pharmacists of the future: what determines graduates’ desire to engage in patient-centred services?Res Soc Adm Pharm. 2021;17(3):545-552. doi:10.1016/j.sapharm.2020.04.030
28.
PadhyeVPonniahAPSpurlingLK, et al. Alternatives to post-discharge home medication reviews for high-risk patients: doctors’ and pharmacists’ views. J Pharm Pract Res. 2012;42(4):273-277. doi:10.1002/j.2055-2335.2012.tb00187.x
29.
PatounasMLauETChanV, et al. Home medicines reviews: a national survey of Australian accredited pharmacists’ health service time investment. Pharm Pract. 2021;19(3):2376. doi:10.18549/PharmPract.2021.3.2376
30.
RougheadEPrattNPeckRGilbertA.Improving medication safety: influence of a patient-specific prescriber feedback program on rate of medication reviews performed by Australian general medical practitioners. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2007;16(7):797-803. doi:10.1002/pds.1393
31.
SawanMO’DonnellLKReeveE, et al. The utility of a computerised clinical decision support system intervention in home medicines review: a mixed-methods process evaluation. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2021;17(4):715-722. doi:10.1016/j.sapharm.2020.06.010
32.
SluggettJKCollierLRBartholomaeusJDInacioMCWesselinghSLCaugheyGE.National trends and policy impacts on provision of home medicines reviews and residential medication management reviews in older Australians, 2009-2019. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(18):9898. doi:10.3390/ijerph18189898
33.
SnellLWhiteL.A sociocognitive approach to service quality and adherence amongst elderly patients: a pilot study. Health Mark Q. 2011;28(2):99-115. doi:10.1080/07359683.2011.545332
34.
SorensenLKingMAPeckRRobertsMS.In-home medication reviews for war veterans: early experience in Australia. J Pharm Pract Res. 2004;34(2):122-124. doi:10.1002/jppr2004342100
35.
SwainLBarclayL.Medication reviews are useful, but the model needs to be changed: perspectives of aboriginal health service health professionals on home medicines reviews. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015;15(1):366. doi:10.1186/s12913-015-1029-3
36.
SwainLSBarclayL.Exploration of aboriginal and Torres strait islander perspectives of home medicines review. RRH. 2015;15:3009.
37.
SwainLGriffitsCPontLBarclayL.Attitudes of pharmacists to provision of home medicines review for indigenous Australians. Int J Clin Pharm. 2014;36(6):1260-1267. doi:10.1007/s11096-014-0030-y
38.
VanCKrassIMitchellB.General practitioner perceptions of extended pharmacy services and modes of collaboration with pharmacists. J Pharm Pract Res. 2007;37(3):182-186. doi:10.1002/j.2055-2335.2007.tb00739.x
39.
WeirKRNaganathanVBonnerC, et al. Pharmacists’ and older adults’ perspectives on the benefits and barriers of home medicines reviews - a qualitative study. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2020;25(2):77-85. doi:10.1177/1355819619858632
40.
WhiteLKlinnerCCobelliN.Improving the uptake of the Australian home medicines review (AHMR) through patient segmentation. Int J Pharm Health Mark. 2011;5(3):194-204. doi:10.1108/17506121111172202
41.
WhiteLKlinnerCCarterS.Consumer perspectives of the Australian home medicines review program: benefits and barriers. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2012;8(1):4-16. doi:10.1016/j.sapharm.2010.11.003
42.
WhiteLKlinnerC.Medicine use of elderly Chinese and Vietnamese immigrants and attitudes to home medicines review. Aust J Prim Health. 2012;18(1):50-55. doi:10.1071/PY10099
43.
YuKNguyenAShakibS, et al. Enhancing continuity of care in therapeutics: development of a post-discharge home medicines review model. J Pharm Pract Res. 2007;37(1):22-26. doi:10.1002/j.2055-2335.2007.tb00652.x
44.
ThiruchelvamKBylesJHasanSSEganNKairuzT.Home medicines review and frailty among community-dwelling older women. Int J Pharm Pract. 2021;29(6):548-555. doi:10.1093/ijpp/riab054
45.
PapastergiouJZervasJLiWRajanA.Home medication reviews by community pharmacists: reaching out to homebound patients. Can Pharm J. 2013;146(3):139-142. doi:10.1177/1715163513487830
46.
PapastergiouJLuenMTencaliucSLiWvan den BemtBHouleS.Medication management issues identified during home medication reviews for ambulatory community pharmacy patients. Can Pharm J. 2019;152(5):334-342. doi:10.1177/1715163519861420
47.
WalusANWoloschukDMM. Impact of pharmacists in a community-based home care service: a pilot program. Can J Hosp Pharm. 2017;70(6):435-442. doi:10.4212/cjhp.v70i6.1718
48.
KaaeSSørensenEWNørgaardLS.Evaluation of a Danish pharmacist student-physician medication review collaboration model. Int J Clin Pharm. 2014;36(3):615-622. doi:10.1007/s11096-014-9945-6
49.
MaddoxKEJ. The role of health policy in improving health outcomes and health equity. Trans Am Clin Climatol Assoc. 2024;134:200-213.
50.
MatovuJKWanyenzeRKMawemukoSOkuiOBazeyoWSerwaddaD.Strengthening health workforce capacity through work-based training. BMC Int Health Hum Rights. 2013;13(1):8. doi:10.1186/1472-698X-13-8
51.
BatistaJPBTorreCSousa LoboJMSepodesB. A review of the continuous professional development system for pharmacists. Hum Resour Health. 2022;20(1):3. doi:10.1186/s12960-021-00700-1
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
