7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Advancing the Science of Deprescribing: A Novel Comprehensive Conceptual Framework : DEPRESCRIBING CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

      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

          Polypharmacy is common in older adults and associated with inappropriate medication use, adverse drug events, medication nonadherence, higher costs, and increased mortality compared to those without polypharmacy. Deprescribing, the clinically supervised process of stopping or reducing the dose of medications when they cause harm or no longer provide benefit, may improve outcomes. Although potentially beneficial, clinicians struggle to overcome structural, organizational, technological, and cognitive barriers to deprescribing, limiting its use in clinical practice. Deprescribing science would benefit from a unifying conceptual framework to prioritize research. Current deprescribing conceptual frameworks have made important contributions to the field, but often with a focus on specific medication classes or aspects of deprescribing. To further this relatively nascent field, we developed a broader deprescribing conceptual framework that builds upon prior frameworks and includes patient, prescriber, and system influences; the process of deprescribing; outcomes; and dissemination. Patient factors include patients’ biology, experience, values, and preferences. Prescriber factors include rational (e.g., based upon explicit knowledge) and non-rational (e.g., behavioral tendencies, biases, and heuristics) decision-making. System factors include resources, incentives, goals, and culture that contribute to deprescribing. The framework separates the deprescribing decision from the deprescribing process . The framework captures the results of deprescribing by examining changes in clinical structures, performance processes, patient experience, health outcomes, and cost. Through testing and refinement, this novel, more comprehensive conceptual framework has the potential to advance deprescribing research by organizing the existing evidence, identifying evidence gaps, and categorizing deprescribing interventions and the settings in which they are applied.

          Related collections

          Most cited references28

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

          The Quality of Care

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

              Health outcomes associated with polypharmacy in community-dwelling older adults: a systematic review.

              To summarize evidence regarding the health outcomes associated with polypharmacy, defined as number of prescribed medications, in older community-dwelling persons.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal of the American Geriatrics Society
                J Am Geriatr Soc
                Wiley
                00028614
                August 20 2019
                Affiliations
                [1 ]General Internal Medicine; VA Boston Healthcare System and Boston University School of Medicine; Boston Massachusetts
                [2 ]University of Pittsburgh and the VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System; Pittsburgh Pennsylvania
                [3 ]Division of General Internal Medicine and Geriatrics; Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine; Chicago Illinois
                [4 ]RAND, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and Harvard Medical School; Boston Massachusetts
                Article
                10.1111/jgs.16136
                6800794
                31430394
                9cb753b7-8076-459a-8488-a185a3b9ec89
                © 2019

                http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1.1

                http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article