Analyze scientific literature on qualitative research that studies the medication experience-MedExp-and related pharmaceutical interventions that bring changes in patients\' health. Through the content analysis of this scoping review, we intend to: (1) understand how pharmacists analyze the MedExp of their patients who receive Comprehensive Medication Management CMM and (2) explain which categories they establish and how they explain the individual, psychological, and cultural dimensions of MedExp.
The scoping review followed recommendations from PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews. Medline (Pubmed), SCOPUS, Web of Science, and Psycinfo were used to identify research on MedExp from patients attended by pharmacists; and that they comply with quality standards, Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research. Articles published in English and Spanish were included.
395 qualitative investigations were identified, 344 were excluded. In total, 19 investigations met the inclusion criteria. Agreement between reviewers, kappa index 0.923, 95% CI (0.836-1.010). The units of analysis of the patients\' speeches were related to how they were progressing in their medications and how it was built through MedExp, the influence it has on the experience of becoming ill, the connection with socioeconomic aspects, and beliefs. Based on MedExp, the pharmacists raised cultural proposals, support networks, health policies, and provide education and information about medication and disease. Additionally, characteristics of the interventions were identified, such as a dialogic model, therapeutic relationship, shared decision-making, comprehensive approach, and referrals to other professionals.
The MedExp is an extensive concept, which encompasses people\'s life experience who use medications based on their individual, psychological, and social qualities. This MedExp is corporal, intentional, intersubjective, and relational, expanding to the collective because it implies beliefs, culture, ethics, and the socioeconomic and political reality of each person located in their context.

Analyze scientific literature on qualitative research that studies the medication experience -MedExp- and related pharmaceutical interventions that bring changes in patients\' health. Through the content analysis of this scoping review, we intend to: 1) understand how pharmacists analyze the MedExp of their patients who receive Comprehensive Medication Management and 2) explain which categories they establish and how they explain the individual, psychological and cultural dimensions of MedExp.
The scoping review followed recommendations from PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews. Medline (Pubmed), SCOPUS, Web of Science, and Psycinfo were used to identify research on MedExp from patients attended by pharmacists; and that they comply with quality standards, Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research. Articles published in English and Spanish were included.
395 qualitative investigations were identified, 344 were excluded. In total, 19 investigations met the inclusion criteria. Agreement between reviewers, kappa index 0.923 95% CI (0.836-1.010). The units of analysis of the patients\' speeches were related to how they were progressing in their medications and how it was built through MedExp, the influence it has on the experience of becoming ill, the connection with socioeconomic aspects, and beliefs. Based on MedExp, the pharmacists raised cultural proposals, support networks, health policies, and provide education and information about medication and disease. Additionally, characteristics of the interventions were identified, such as a dialogic model, therapeutic relationship, shared decision-making, comprehensive approach, and referrals to other professionals.
The MedExp is an extensive concept, which encompasses people\'s life experience who use medications based on their individual, psychological and social qualities. This MedExp is corporal, intentional, intersubjective and relational, expanding to the collective because it implies beliefs, culture, ethics and the socioeconomic and political reality of each person located in their context.

Despite the considerable potential of qualitative approaches for studying the systemic and constructionist therapy process due to shared theoretical and epistemological premises, to date there is lack of a comprehensive qualitative synthesis of how change process is experienced and conceptualized by clients and therapists. To address this evidence gap, we performed a systematic meta-synthesis review of 30 studies reporting clients\' and therapists\' retrospective narratives of change process across systemic and constructionist models and across a range of client configurations, including individuals, couples, families, and groups. The studies were identified following a systematic search in PsycINFO and MEDLINE resulting in 2,977 articles, which were screened against eligibility criteria. Thematic analysis led to the identification of four main themes: (1) navigating through differences, (2) toward nonpathologizing construction of problems, (3) navigating through power imbalances, and (4) toward new and trusting ways of relating. Findings illustrate the multifaceted aspects of systemic and constructionist change process, the importance for their reflexive appraisal, and the need for further research contributing to the understanding of the challenges inherent in the systemic and constructionist therapeutic context.
A pesar del potencial considerable de los enfoques cualitativos para estudiar el proceso de la terapia sistémica y construccionista debido a premisas teóricas y epistemológicas compartidas, hasta la fecha hay una escasez de síntesis cualitativas completas de cómo los pacientes y los terapeutas viven y conceptualizan el proceso de cambio. Para abordar esta falta de datos, realizamos una revisión sistemática de la metasíntesis de 30 estudios que informan historias retrospectivas de los pacientes y los terapeutas del proceso de cambio entre modelos sistémicos y construccionistas y entre una variedad de configuraciones de pacientes, entre ellas, individuos, parejas, familias y grupos. Los estudios se identificaron después de una búsqueda sistemática en PsycINFO y MEDLINE, de donde se obtuvieron 2,977 artículos, que se analizaron según los criterios de elegibilidad. El análisis temático condujo a la identificación de cuatro temas principales: 1) orientarse entre las diferencias, 2) hacia una construcción no patologizante de los problemas, 3) orientarse entre los desequilibrios de poder, 4) hacia formas nuevas y confiables de relacionarse. Los resultados ilustran los aspectos multifacéticos del proceso de cambio sistémico y construccionista, la importancia para su valoración reflexiva y la necesidad de más investigaciones que contribuyan a la comprensión de los desafíos inherentes en el contexto terapéutico sistémico y construccionista.
尽管由于理论和认识论的共同存在，研究系统性和建构性治疗过程的定性方法具有相当大的潜力，但到目前为止，来访者和治疗师对改变的过程和概念化缺乏全面的定性综合。 为了解决这一证据缺口，我们对30项研究进行了系统的文献综述，报告了来访者和治疗师在系统和构建主义模型和一系列来访者配置(包括个人、夫妻、家庭和群体)对变化过程的回顾。 研究是在对PsycINFO和MEDLINE进行系统搜索后确定的，结果得出了2977篇文章，这些文章是根据相关的标准进行筛选的。 主题分析后识别出四个主题：1)在差异中找到方向，2)对问题的非病理学构建，3)在权力失衡中找到方向，4)关于新的和信任的关系。 研究结果说明了系统和建构主义改变过程的多方面，和对其反射性评价的重要性。也指出了进一步研究的需要，对理解系统和建构主义治疗环境中固有的挑战有帮助。.

The evidence regarding effectiveness of family interventions for psychosis (FIP) is strong and consistent. However, there is a gap in the research on the process of these interventions, and little is known about their active ingredients. This review aims to identify the active ingredients of FIP. We conducted a systematic literature review, focusing on qualitative research, and analyzed 22 papers in total. We found a single study comprehensively exploring the process of FIP. All other studies focused on particular aspects of process-related variables. The key elements of FIP seem to be the so-called \"common therapeutic factors\", followed by education about the illness and coping skills training. This review supports the value of a stepped model of intervention according to the needs of the families. However, the evidence reviewed also reveals a gap in the research findings based on the limited research available. FIP are complex, psychosocial interventions with multiple components, and more intensive, qualitative research is needed to establish linkages between process and outcome.