+1 Recommend
0 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Availability and readability of patient education materials for deprescribing: An environmental scan

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.


          To identify and evaluate content and readability of freely available online deprescribing patient education materials (PEMs). Systematic review of PEMs using MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and The Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews from inception to 25 September 2017 to identify PEMs. Additionally, deprescribing researchers and health professionals were surveyed to identify additional materials. Known repositories of materials were searched followed by a systematic Google search (22–28 January 2018). Materials were evaluated using an approach informed by the Patient Education Material Assessment Tool and the International Patient Decision Aids Standards Inventory. Readability of text‐based materials was assessed using the US‐based Gunning–Fog Index and Flesch–Kincaid Grade level. Forty‐eight PEMs were identified. PEMs addressing deprescribing of medications for symptom control (81%) were most common. Preventative medications were rarely addressed and material (39%) focused on older people. Only 37% of PEMs provided information about both potential benefits (e.g. reducing risk of side effects) and harms (e.g. withdrawal symptoms, increased risk of disease) of deprescribing, while 40% focussed on benefits only. Readability indices indicated an average minimum reading level of Grade 12. Option Grids and Decision Aids (mean reading level below Grade 10) were most suitable for people with average literacy levels. Over 1/3 of deprescribing PEMs present potential benefits and harms of deprescribing indicating most of the freely available materials are not balanced. Most PEMs are pitched above average reading levels making them inaccessible for low health literacy populations.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 38

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Patient barriers to and enablers of deprescribing: a systematic review.

          Inappropriate medication use is common in the elderly and the risks associated with their use are well known. The term deprescribing has been utilised to describe the complex process that is required for the safe and effective cessation of inappropriate medications. Given the primacy of the consumer in health care, their views must be central in the development of any deprescribing process. The aim of this study was to identify barriers and enablers that may influence a patient's decision to cease a medication. A systematic search of MEDLINE, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, EMBASE, CINAHL, Informit and Scopus was conducted and augmented with a manual search. Numerous search terms relating to withdrawal of medications and consumers' beliefs were utilised. Articles were included if the barriers or enablers were directly patient/carer reported and related to long-term medication(s) that they were currently taking or had recently ceased. Determination of relevance and data extraction was performed independently by two reviewers. Content analysis with coding was utilised for synthesis of results. Twenty-one articles met the criteria and were included in the review. Three themes, disagreement/agreement with 'appropriateness' of cessation, absence/presence of a 'process' for cessation, and negative/positive 'influences' to cease medication, were identified as both potential barriers and enablers, with 'fear' of cessation and 'dislike' of medications as a fourth barrier and enabler, respectively. The most common barrier/enabler identified was 'appropriateness' of cessation, with 15 studies identifying this as a barrier and 18 as an enabler. The decision to stop a medication by an individual is influenced by multiple competing barriers and enablers. Knowledge of these will aid in the development of a deprescribing process, particularly in approaching the topic of cessation with the patient and what process should be utilised. However, further research is required to determine if the proposed patient-centred deprescribing process will result in improved patient outcomes.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Presenting quantitative information about decision outcomes: a risk communication primer for patient decision aid developers

            Background Making evidence-based decisions often requires comparison of two or more options. Research-based evidence may exist which quantifies how likely the outcomes are for each option. Understanding these numeric estimates improves patients’ risk perception and leads to better informed decision making. This paper summarises current “best practices” in communication of evidence-based numeric outcomes for developers of patient decision aids (PtDAs) and other health communication tools. Method An expert consensus group of fourteen researchers from North America, Europe, and Australasia identified eleven main issues in risk communication. Two experts for each issue wrote a “state of the art” summary of best evidence, drawing on the PtDA, health, psychological, and broader scientific literature. In addition, commonly used terms were defined and a set of guiding principles and key messages derived from the results. Results The eleven key components of risk communication were: 1) Presenting the chance an event will occur; 2) Presenting changes in numeric outcomes; 3) Outcome estimates for test and screening decisions; 4) Numeric estimates in context and with evaluative labels; 5) Conveying uncertainty; 6) Visual formats; 7) Tailoring estimates; 8) Formats for understanding outcomes over time; 9) Narrative methods for conveying the chance of an event; 10) Important skills for understanding numerical estimates; and 11) Interactive web-based formats. Guiding principles from the evidence summaries advise that risk communication formats should reflect the task required of the user, should always define a relevant reference class (i.e., denominator) over time, should aim to use a consistent format throughout documents, should avoid “1 in x” formats and variable denominators, consider the magnitude of numbers used and the possibility of format bias, and should take into account the numeracy and graph literacy of the audience. Conclusion A substantial and rapidly expanding evidence base exists for risk communication. Developers of tools to facilitate evidence-based decision making should apply these principles to improve the quality of risk communication in practice.
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Toward Minimum Standards for Certifying Patient Decision Aids: A Modified Delphi Consensus Process.

              The IPDAS Collaboration has developed a checklist and an instrument (IPDASi v3.0) to assess the quality of patient decision aids (PDAs) in terms of their development process and shared decision-making design components. Certification of PDAs is of growing interest in the US and elsewhere. We report a modified Delphi consensus process to agree on IPDASi (v3.0) items that should be considered as minimum standards for PDA certification, for inclusion in the refined IPDASi (v4.0). A 2-stage Delphi voting process considered the inclusion of IPDASi (v3.0) items as minimum standards. Item scores and qualitative comments were analyzed, followed by expert group discussion. One hundred and one people voted in round 1; 87 in round 2. Forty-seven items were reduced to 44 items across 3 new categories: 1) qualifying criteria, which are required in order for an intervention to be considered a decision aid (6 items); 2) certification criteria, without which a decision aid is judged to have a high risk of harmful bias (10 items); and 3) quality criteria, believed to strengthen a decision aid but whose omission does not present a high risk of harmful bias (28 items). This study provides preliminary certification criteria for PDAs. Scoring and rating processes need to be tested and finalized. However, the process of appraising the quality of the clinical evidence reported by the PDA should be used to complement these criteria; the proposed standards are designed to rate the quality of the development process and shared decision-making design elements, not the quality of the PDA's clinical content. © The Author(s) 2013.

                Author and article information

                British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
                Br J Clin Pharmacol
                May 23 2019
                July 2019
                May 07 2019
                July 2019
                : 85
                : 7
                : 1396-1406
                [1 ]Sydney School of Public Health, ASK‐GP Centre of Research ExcellenceThe University of Sydney NSW Australia
                [2 ]Wiser Health CareThe University of Sydney Sydney NSW Australia
                [3 ]Sydney Health Literacy Lab, Sydney School of Public HealthThe University of Sydney NSW Australia
                [4 ]School of Pharmacy and Charles Perkins CentreThe University of Sydney Sydney NSW Australia
                © 2019


                Comment on this article