02). Crockett et al.[27] reported that only two of seven (29%) referred participants took up referral among participants who were screened for osteoporosis with questionnaire only, and three

out of 22 (14%) referred participants took up referral among those screened with both questionnaires and BMD measurements. Overall, five of the eight studies that reported referral uptake, reported rates of less than 50%. Thirteen studies (26%) reported findings about the effect of screening on the participants’ awareness of the target diseases. Where reported, screening seemed to improve participants’ awareness of diseases and many participants reported changes in lifestyle or behaviour. For example, Law and BI 2536 Shapiro[61] found that there was a 26% increase in participants’ osteoporosis awareness after the screening and awareness programme. Also, Giles et al.[71] found that the intervention provided by pharmacists (based on American Cancer Society (ACS) guidelines) increased women’s adherence to ACS guidelines for monthly

breast self-examination from 31% to 56%. By contrast, in another osteoporosis screening intervention, Yuksel et al.[45] reported that the intervention group (tailored osteoporosis education, and quantitative heel ultrasound (QUS) measurements) did not score significantly higher than the control group (printed information on osteoporosis only) in an osteoporosis-related Selleckchem Trichostatin A knowledge test (intervention group scored 57% compared to 54% in control group). However, more people in the intervention group reported an osteoporosis-specific appointment with their primary care doctor. One study[68] compared the cost-effectiveness of two pharmacy-based screening interventions for diabetes (the TTO and SS methods)

in Australia. The total cost of pharmacy screening using TTO was lower than the SS method (AUD 7.76 versus AUD11.83). However, when the cost of subsequent screening and diagnostic tests performed by the general practitioner (GP) were included, the average cost per diabetes case detected was much higher in the TTO group (AUD 6241 versus AUD 788). A Thai study[47] compared the cost of diabetes and hypertension screening Uroporphyrinogen III synthase provided in community pharmacies (n = 2 pharmacies) to screening provided on footpaths and streets in seven different communities under the supervision of a primary care unit. The unit cost for community pharmacy screening was higher (US$9.80) than ‘community-based’ screening (US$3.80). Eight other studies[46, 50, 55, 59, 62, 64-66] reported other economic information including: costs associated with providing screening; willingness to pay for screening; and fees charged for screening. Eighteen of the included studies (36%) reported outcomes on participant satisfaction and/or perceptions of the screening interventions provided by pharmacists.