Search

This article explores the impact of contextual factors on older adults' agreement with a recommendation to stop taking statins, a medication commonly prescribed to prevent cardiovascular events. The study conducted a vignette-based online experiment with older people from Australia, the Netherlands, United Kingdom, and the United States. The results showed that contextual factors such as the statin being prescribed by a cardiologist, the patient's spouse having a stroke after stopping the statin, and viewing an image of a stroke decreased participants' agreement with the deprescribing recommendation. The study suggests that clinicians should consider these contextual factors when engaging in deprescribing conversations with patients. [Extracted from the article]

This study aimed to test the adequacy of a quantitative measure of our qualitatively developed Patient Typology—categories of older adults' attitudes towards medicines and medicine decision‐making—and identify characteristics associated with each Typology. We conducted secondary data analyses of a subset of survey item measures of adults (≥65 years) who were members of online survey panels in Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States and the Netherlands (n = 4688). Multinomial logistic regression analyses assessed associations between demographic, psychosocial and medication‐related measures. Mean age was 71.5 (5), and 47.5% of participants were female. Factors associated with an increased likelihood of identifying with Typology 1 'Attached to medicines' over Typology 2 'Open to deprescribing' were higher positive attitude towards polypharmacy (RRR = 1.12, p = <0.001) and higher need for certainty (RRR = 1.11, p = 0.039). Factors associated with an increased likelihood of identifying with Typology 3 'Defers (medication decision‐making) to others' over Typology 2 were older age (RRR = 1.47 per 10‐year age increase, p = <0.001) and a decreased likelihood of prior deprescribing experience (RRR = 0.73, p = 0.033). This study provides validation of the Typology with large samples from four countries, with the quantitatively‐measured typologies generally aligning with the qualitatively derived categories. Our Patient Typology measure provides a succinct way researchers can assess attitudes towards deprescribing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To explore GP perspectives on a Medicines Conversation Guide to support deprescribing communication. Methods: Semistructured interviews with GPs from Australia (n = 32). Participants were purposively sampled with varying experiences and locations. Transcribed audio recordings of interviews were coded using framework analysis. Key findings: Most GPs stated they would use the Guide in consultation with an older patient to discuss medications. The strengths of the Guide included empowering the patient voice on an important topic. Limitations included time and complex concepts. Conclusions: Overall, the Medicines Conversation Guide was perceived by GPs to be a useful communication tool to support discussions about deprescribing with patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: Deprescribing is the systematic process of discontinuing medications when the harms outweigh the benefits. This study aimed to identify barriers and facilitators in people with chronic non-cancer pain when deprescribing opioid analgesics, and their views on resources that assist with deprescribing.Methods: A purposive sampling strategy was used to recruit 19 adults with chronic non-cancer pain from the community who were, or had been, on long-term opioid therapy. Recruitment continued until thematic saturation was achieved. Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted. A five-step framework and thematic analysis method identified themes for each study aim.Results: Themes identifying barriers to opioid deprescribing raised challenges of a lack of available alternatives, managing opioid dependency and withdrawal symptoms or inability to function without opioids when in extreme pain. Facilitating themes described the value of support networks, including a trusting doctor-patient relationship and finding individual coping strategies to address deprescribing barriers. We explored a variety of resources from electronic forms such as websites and apps to paper-based or face to face. Participants expressed that whatever the form, resources need to be educational but also simple and engaging.Conclusions: Most people suffering from chronic non-cancer pain expressed dissatisfaction with being on opioids but most were still unwilling to deprescribe due to insufficient alternatives, a lack of support from their doctors and lack of information about the deprescribing process. Deprescribing can be facilitated by improving supportive networks and strategies and providing simple and positive educational resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Deprescribing, the process of reducing or discontinuing unnecessary or harmful medicines is an essential part of clinical practice. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of interventions designed to deprescribe opioid analgesics for pain relief in patients with chronic non-cancer pain. Methods: We searched electronic databases, including clinical trial registries, from database inception to 13th January 2020 without restrictions, and conducted citation tracking. Our systematic review included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating interventions reducing the prescription, or use of opioid analgesics in patients with chronic pain versus control. Inventions could be aimed at the patient, clinician, or both. We excluded trials enrolling patients with cancer or illicit drug use. Two authors independently screened and extracted data. Outcome follow-up timepoints were short (≤ 3 months), intermediate (> 3 but < 12 months) or long (≥ 12 months) term. Primary outcome was the reduction in opioid dose [morphine milligram equivalent (MME) mg/day]. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Results: We included ten patient-focused RCT interventions (n = 835; median 37 participants) and 2 testing clinician-focused interventions (n = 291 clinicians); none at low risk of bias. Patient-focused interventions did not reduce opioid dose in the intermediate term [e.g. dose reduction protocol, mean difference (MD) − 19.9 MME, 95% CI − 107.5 to 67.7], nor did they increase the number of participants who ceased their dose, or increase the risk of serious adverse events or adverse events. One clinician intervention of education plus decision tools versus decision tools alone reduced the number of opioid prescriptions (risk difference (RD) − 0.1, 95% CI − 0.2 to − 0.1), dose (MD − 5.3 MME, 95% CI − 6.2 to − 4.5) and use (RD − 0.1, 95% CI − 0.1 to − 0.0) in the long term. Limitations: Study heterogeneity prevented meta-analysis. Conclusion: The small number of studies and heterogeneity prevented firm conclusions to recommend any one opioid-analgesic-deprescribing strategy in patients with chronic pain. Systematic review registration number: PROSPERO CRD42017068422. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To identify and evaluate content and readability of freely available online deprescribing patient education materials (PEMs). Methods: 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. Results: 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. Conclusions: 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Deprescribing is the systematic process of discontinuing drugs when harms outweigh the benefits. We conducted semistructured telephone interviews with 22 general practitioners (GPs) who had prescribed or deprescribed opioids in patients with chronic noncancer pain within the past 6 months to investigate the barriers and facilitators to deprescribing opioid analgesics in patients with chronic noncancer pain. We also explored GPs' perspectives on the available resources to assist them with opioid deprescribing. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and then coded using an iterative process until data saturation reached. The thematic analysis process identified themes, first as concepts, and then refined to overarching themes after the merging of similar subthemes. Themes exploring barriers to deprescribing highlighted the difficulties GPs face while considering patient factors and varying prescribing practices within the confines of the health system. Patient motivation and doctor-patient rapport were central factors to facilitate deprescribing and GPs considered the most important deprescribing resource to be a multidisciplinary network of clinicians to support themselves and their patients. Therefore, although GPs emphasised the importance of deprescribing opioid analgesics, they also expressed many barriers relating to managing complex pain conditions, patient factors, and varying prescribing practices between clinicians. Some of these barriers could be mitigated by GPs having time and resources to educate and build rapport with their patients. This suggests the need for further development of multimodal resources and improved support through the public health system to enable GPs to prioritise patient-centred care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]