51
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      A systematic review of the emerging definition of ‘deprescribing’ with network analysis: implications for future research and clinical practice.

      book-review

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          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.

          Abstract

          Aims

          The aim of this study was to identify what definitions have been published for the term ‘deprescribing’, and determine whether a unifying definition could be reached. A secondary aim was to uncover patterns between the published definitions which could explain any variation.

          Methods

          Systematic literature searches were performed (earliest records to February 2014) in MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Informit, Scopus and Google Scholar. The terms deprescrib* or de‐prescrib* were employed as a keyword search in all fields. Conventional content analysis and word frequencies were used to identify characteristics of the definitions. Network analysis was conducted to visualize characteristic distribution across authors and articles.

          Results

          Following removal of duplicates, 231 articles were retrieved, 37 of which included a definition. Eight characteristics of the definitions were identified: use of the term stop/withdraw/cease/discontinue (35 articles), aspect of prescribing included e.g. long term therapy/inappropriate medications ( n = 18), use of the term ‘process’ or ‘structured’ ( n = 13), withdrawal is planned/supervised/judicious ( n = 11), involving multiple steps ( n = 7), includes dose reduction/substitution ( n = 7), desired goals/outcomes described ( n = 5) and involves tapering ( n = 4). Network analysis did not reveal patterns responsible for variations in previously used definitions.

          Conclusions

          These findings show that there is lack of consensus on the definition of deprescribing. This article proposes the following definition: ‘ Deprescribing is the process of withdrawal of an inappropriate medication, supervised by a health care professional with the goal of managing polypharmacy and improving outcomes ’. This definition has not yet been externally validated and further work is required to develop an internationally accepted and appropriate definition.

          Related collections

          Most cited references44

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

          Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration.

          M. Newman (2004)
          By using data from three bibliographic databases in biology, physics, and mathematics, respectively, networks are constructed in which the nodes are scientists, and two scientists are connected if they have coauthored a paper. We use these networks to answer a broad variety of questions about collaboration patterns, such as the numbers of papers authors write, how many people they write them with, what the typical distance between scientists is through the network, and how patterns of collaboration vary between subjects and over time. We also summarize a number of recent results by other authors on coauthorship patterns.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Appropriate prescribing in elderly people: how well can it be measured and optimised?

            Prescription of medicines is a fundamental component of the care of elderly people, and optimisation of drug prescribing for this group of patients has become an important public-health issue worldwide. Several characteristics of ageing and geriatric medicine affect medication prescribing for elderly people and render the selection of appropriate pharmacotherapy a challenging and complex process. In the first paper in this series we aim to define and categorise appropriate prescribing in elderly people, critically review the instruments that are available to measure it and discuss their predictive validity, critically review recent randomised controlled intervention studies that assessed the effect of optimisation strategies on the appropriateness of prescribing in elderly people, and suggest directions for future research and practice.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Prescriber barriers and enablers to minimising potentially inappropriate medications in adults: a systematic review and thematic synthesis

              Objective To synthesise qualitative studies that explore prescribers’ perceived barriers and enablers to minimising potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) chronically prescribed in adults. Design A qualitative systematic review was undertaken by searching PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, PsycINFO, CINAHL and INFORMIT from inception to March 2014, combined with an extensive manual search of reference lists and related citations. A quality checklist was used to assess the transparency of the reporting of included studies and the potential for bias. Thematic synthesis identified common subthemes and descriptive themes across studies from which an analytical construct was developed. Study characteristics were examined to explain differences in findings. Setting All healthcare settings. Participants Medical and non-medical prescribers of medicines to adults. Outcomes Prescribers’ perspectives on factors which shape their behaviour towards continuing or discontinuing PIMs in adults. Results 21 studies were included; most explored primary care physicians’ perspectives on managing older, community-based adults. Barriers and enablers to minimising PIMs emerged within four analytical themes: problem awareness; inertia secondary to lower perceived value proposition for ceasing versus continuing PIMs; self-efficacy in regard to personal ability to alter prescribing; and feasibility of altering prescribing in routine care environments given external constraints. The first three themes are intrinsic to the prescriber (eg, beliefs, attitudes, knowledge, skills, behaviour) and the fourth is extrinsic (eg, patient, work setting, health system and cultural factors). The PIMs examined and practice setting influenced the themes reported. Conclusions A multitude of highly interdependent factors shape prescribers’ behaviour towards continuing or discontinuing PIMs. A full understanding of prescriber barriers and enablers to changing prescribing behaviour is critical to the development of targeted interventions aimed at deprescribing PIMs and reducing the risk of iatrogenic harm.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Br J Clin Pharmacol
                Br J Clin Pharmacol
                10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2125
                BCP
                British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                0306-5251
                1365-2125
                04 November 2015
                December 2015
                : 80
                : 6 ( doiID: 10.1111/bcp.v80.6 )
                : 1254-1268
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Cognitive Decline Partnership Centre, Kolling Institute of Medical Research, Sydney Medical School University of Sydney Sydney NSW
                [ 2 ] Faculty of Pharmacy University of Sydney Sydney NSW
                [ 3 ] Departments of Clinical Pharmacology and Aged Care Royal North Shore Hospital NSW Australia
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence

                Dr Emily Reeve PhD, Cognitive Decline Partnership Centre, Kolling Institute of Medical Research, Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Aging and Pharmacology Research Unit, Level 12, Kolling Building, Royal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards, NSW, 2065, Australia.

                Tel.: +61 02 9926 4924

                Fax: +61 02 9926 4053

                E‐mail: emily.reeve@ 123456sydney.edu.au

                Article
                PMC4693477 PMC4693477 4693477 BCP12732 REV-00212-15.R1
                10.1111/bcp.12732
                4693477
                27006985
                5b5b8b2b-7d50-4401-af8c-682a86fc266b
                © 2015 The British Pharmacological Society
                History
                : 12 April 2015
                : 22 June 2015
                : 03 August 2015
                Page count
                Pages: 15
                Categories
                Systematic Review
                Systematic Reviews
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                bcp12732
                December 2015
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_NLMPMC version:4.7.2 mode:remove_FC converted:22.12.2015

                inappropriate medication use,polypharmacy,network analysis,health care definitions,deprescribing

                Comments

                Comment on this article