Dissatisfaction was correspondingly Nintedanib mw low, for example, Crockett et al.[27] reported that only 3% of participants (n = 6/197) were dissatisfied with the intervention they received. Other positive perceptions reported in these 18 studies included: feeling encouraged to discuss the disease with their doctors;[59] likelihood of taking part in future pharmacy-based screening;[23] and likelihood of recommending the service to others.[63] Four studies (8%) reported physicians’ attitudes and perceptions to pharmacy-based

screening interventions. In three osteoporosis screening interventions, physicians found information on pharmacy screening results useful.[22, 60, 64] However, in one small study about a pharmacy-led intervention to detect hypertension[54] Obeticholic Acid more than half of physicians interviewed (n = 8/14) expressed concerns that screening would lead to duplication of their own work, that it might cause anxiety in those screened, and that there was, in any case, lack of clarity about the usefulness of screening for hypertension.

Two studies assessed pharmacists’ views about providing screening. In Hersberger et al.,[32] 53% of pharmacist responders (n = 196) wanted to continue to provide screening for sleep disorders, although the time required for screening and counselling was considered high. In one small study about pharmacy screening for blood glucose levels, King et al.[69] surveyed 30 pharmacists. One respondent thought the training was insufficient and 11 thought that screening charges were too high. This review has summarised the available evidence on feasibility and acceptability of screening for major diseases in community pharmacies. It suggests

that, while such interventions appear to be feasible in the community pharmacy setting and they have been largely well received, more research of higher quality is needed to establish their effectiveness and cost-effectiveness compared to screening in other settings. This is the first published systematic review to synthesise evidence on the feasibility of community pharmacy-based screening interventions for major diseases. No previous systematic review that matched the inclusion criteria of this review was identified. This review was not limited by the diseases being screened for and, therefore, included Unoprostone any community pharmacy-based screening intervention for any major disease. Five electronic databases were searched. Hand searching of reference lists of included studies identified no further relevant studies suggesting that the search strategy was comprehensive. To reduce the risk of selection bias, screening of abstracts was performed independently by two reviewers. Double-data extraction of a sample of included articles was also undertaken for quality assurance. Ideally, if resources had allowed, all included articles would have been double-data extracted.