21
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Development of consumer information leaflets for deprescribing in older hospital inpatients: a mixed-methods study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      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

          Objective

          To develop information leaflets for older inpatients and/or their carers to support deprescribing of antipsychotics, benzodiazepines/Z-drugs and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs).

          Design

          An iterative mixed-methods approach involving face-to-face user testing and semi-structured interviews was performed over three rounds with consumers and hospital health professionals.

          Setting

          Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

          Participants

          Thirty-seven consumers (or their carers) aged 65 years or older admitted to hospital in the previous 5 years and taking at least one regular medicine (not the medicine tested) completed user testing. Health professionals included a convenience sample of seven pharmacists and five doctors.

          Methods

          The antipsychotic leaflet was tested in round 1 (consumers, n=10) and revised and retested in round 2 (consumers, n=9; health professionals, n=5). Findings from rounds 1 and 2 informed the design of the benzodiazepine/Z-drug and PPI leaflets tested in round 3 (benzodiazepine/Z-drug consumers, n=9; health professionals, n=7; PPI consumers, n=9). Findings from round 3 informed the final design of all leaflets. Consumer user testing involved 12–13 questions to evaluate consumers’ ability to locate and understand information in the leaflet. Usability by health professionals was assessed using the System Usability Scale (SUS).

          Results

          At least 80% of consumers correctly found and understood the deprescribing information in the leaflets (9 of 12 information points in round 1 (antipsychotic); 10 of 12 in round 2; 12 of 13 (benzodiazepine/Z-drug) and 11 of 12 (PPI) in round 3). Consumers perceived the leaflets to be informative, well-designed and useful aids for ongoing medication management. The SUS scores obtained from health professionals were 91.0±3.8 for the antipsychotic leaflet and 86.4±6.6 for the benzodiazepine/Z-drug leaflet, indicating excellent usability.

          Conclusions

          Understandable and easy-to-use consumer information leaflets were developed and tested by consumers and health professionals. The feasibility and utility of these leaflets to support deprescribing at transitions of care should be explored in clinical practice.

          Related collections

          Most cited references36

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

          Brief questions to identify patients with inadequate health literacy.

          No practical method for identifying patients with low heath literacy exists. We sought to develop screening questions for identifying patients with inadequate or marginal health literacy. Patients (n=332) at a VA preoperative clinic completed in-person interviews that included 16 health literacy screening questions on a 5-point Likert scale, followed by a validated health literacy measure, the Short Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults (STOHFLA). Based on the STOFHLA, patients were classified as having either inadequate, marginal, or adequate health literacy. Each of the 16 screening questions was evaluated and compared to two comparison standards: (1) inadequate health literacy and (2) inadequate or marginal health literacy on the STOHFLA. Fifteen participants (4.5%) had inadequate health literacy and 25 (7.5%) had marginal health literacy on the STOHFLA. Three of the screening questions, "How often do you have someone help you read hospital materials?" "How confident are you filling out medical forms by yourself?" and "How often do you have problems learning about your medical condition because of difficulty understanding written information?" were effective in detecting inadequate health literacy (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.87, 0.80, and 0.76, respectively). These questions were weaker for identifying patients with marginal health literacy. Three questions were each effective screening tests for inadequate health literacy in this population.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            IBM computer usability satisfaction questionnaires: Psychometric evaluation and instructions for use

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Frameworks for supporting patient and public involvement in research: Systematic review and co‐design pilot

              Abstract Background Numerous frameworks for supporting, evaluating and reporting patient and public involvement in research exist. The literature is diverse and theoretically heterogeneous. Objectives To identify and synthesize published frameworks, consider whether and how these have been used, and apply design principles to improve usability. Search strategy Keyword search of six databases; hand search of eight journals; ancestry and snowball search; requests to experts. Inclusion criteria Published, systematic approaches (frameworks) designed to support, evaluate or report on patient or public involvement in health‐related research. Data extraction and synthesis Data were extracted on provenance; collaborators and sponsors; theoretical basis; lay input; intended user(s) and use(s); topics covered; examples of use; critiques; and updates. We used the Canadian Centre for Excellence on Partnerships with Patients and Public (CEPPP) evaluation tool and hermeneutic methodology to grade and synthesize the frameworks. In five co‐design workshops, we tested evidence‐based resources based on the review findings. Results Our final data set consisted of 65 frameworks, most of which scored highly on the CEPPP tool. They had different provenances, intended purposes, strengths and limitations. We grouped them into five categories: power‐focused; priority‐setting; study‐focused; report‐focused; and partnership‐focused. Frameworks were used mainly by the groups who developed them. The empirical component of our study generated a structured format and evidence‐based facilitator notes for a “build your own framework” co‐design workshop. Conclusion The plethora of frameworks combined with evidence of limited transferability suggests that a single, off‐the‐shelf framework may be less useful than a menu of evidence‐based resources which stakeholders can use to co‐design their own frameworks.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                bmjopen
                bmjopen
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-6055
                2019
                11 December 2019
                : 9
                : 12
                : e033303
                Affiliations
                [1 ] departmentDepartments of Clinical Pharmacology and Aged Care , Kolling Institute of Medical Research, Royal North Shore Hospital , St Leonards, New South Wales, Australia
                [2 ] departmentNorthern Clinical School , The University of Sydney Faculty of Medicine and Health , Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
                [3 ] departmentSydney Pharmacy School , The University of Sydney Faculty of Medicine and Health , Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
                [4 ] departmentCharles Perkins Centre , The University of Sydney , Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
                [5 ] departmentSchool of Public Health , The University of Sydney Faculty of Medicine and Health , Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
                [6 ] departmentCentre for Education and Research on Ageing , Concord Hospital , Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
                [7 ] departmentConcord Clinical School , The University of Sydney Faculty of Medicine and Health , Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Professor Sarah Hilmer; sarah.hilmer@ 123456sydney.edu.au
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1830-9930
                Article
                bmjopen-2019-033303
                10.1136/bmjopen-2019-033303
                6924866
                31831548
                fe52a1af-78b3-4cae-9ee1-328fa237713d
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See:  http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 30 July 2019
                : 07 November 2019
                : 08 November 2019
                Categories
                Geriatric Medicine
                Original Research
                1506
                1698
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                Medicine
                patient information leaflet,user testing,usability testing,health professionals,deprescribing,geriatric medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article