Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24670429›Full record

ReviewBMJ open2014

Individualisation of drug treatments for patients with long-term conditions: a review of concepts.

S Denford, J Frost, P Dieppe, Chris Cooper, N Britten

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMJ open, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Commentary: how person-centred is pharmaceutical care?International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2022
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Elaboration of the Gothenburg model of person-centred care.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2017
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Community pharmacy Medicines Use Review: current challenges.Integrated pharmacy research & practice · 2017
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Beliefs and attitudes of older adults and carers about deprescribing of medications: a qualitative focus group study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2016
    Article
  17. Solutions to problematic polypharmacy: learning from the expertise of patients.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2015
    Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

S DenfordUniversity of Exeter Medical School, Institute of Health Research, Exeter, UK.
J Frost
P Dieppe
Chris Cooper
N Britten

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesPatients and policy makers advocate that drug treatments should be individualised. However, the term is used in a variety of ways. We set out to identify the range of related terminology and concepts in the general field of individualisation, map out the relationships between these concepts and explore how patients' perspectives are considered.

designWe consulted members of an established patient and public involvement group about their experience of medicine taking for long-term conditions and their ideas about individualisation. We then conducted a scoping review of the literature to explore how terms surrounding individualisation of drug treatment are used and defined in the literature, and to explore the extent to which patients' perspectives are represented, with a view to informing future recommendations as to how individualisation can be operationalised.

methodsWe identified relevant literature using a range of search strategies. Two researchers independently extracted definitions of terms using a template. Inductive and deductive methods were used to explore the data.

resultsDefinitions were categorised according to the following themes: medical management; pharmacogenetics, the patient's perspective; interactions between the healthcare provider and patient and management of long-term conditions.

conclusionsWithin the literature reviewed, the involvement of patients in the ongoing management of drug treatment was largely absent. We propose the use of a new term 'mutually agreed tailoring' (MAT). This describes the ongoing pharmacological management of conditions that incorporates patients' specific needs, experiences and existing strategies for using their medications, and the professionals' clinical judgement. This usually includes patients monitoring their symptoms and, with the support of the professional, making appropriate product, dose or timing adjustments as necessary. Our previous work suggests that many patients and doctors are successfully practising MAT, so we suggest that a formal description may facilitate wider utilisation of strategies that will improve patient outcomes.

Indexed as

Disease ManagementPatient ParticipationPhysician-Patient RelationsSelf CareChronic DiseaseHumansPharmacogeneticsHEALTH SERVICES ADMINISTRATION & MANAGEMENT

Identifiers

PMID24670429
PMCPMC3975745

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.