Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27253380›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2016

Priority Setting and Influential Factors on Acceptance of Pharmaceutical Recommendations in Collaborative Medication Reviews in an Ambulatory Care Setting - Analysis of a Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial (WestGem-Study).

Olaf Rose, Hugo Mennemann, Carina John, Marcus Lautenschläger, Damaris Mertens-Keller, Katharina Richling, Isabel Waltering, Stefanie Hamacher, Moritz Felsch, Lena Herich and 4 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

14 authors.

Olaf RoseClinical Pharmacy, Institute of Pharmacy, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Hugo MennemannDepartment of Social Sciences, University of Applied Science Muenster, Muenster, Germany.
Carina JohnElefanten-Apotheke, Steinfurt, Germany.
Marcus LautenschlägerElefanten-Apotheke, Steinfurt, Germany.
Damaris Mertens-KellerElefanten-Apotheke, Steinfurt, Germany.
Katharina RichlingElefanten-Apotheke, Steinfurt, Germany.
Isabel WalteringDepartment of Pharmaceutical and Medicinal Chemistry, Clinical Pharmacy, Westfaelische Wilhelms-University, Muenster, Germany.
Stefanie HamacherInstitute of Medical Statistics, Informatics and Epidemiology (IMSIE), University of Cologne, Koeln, Germany.
Moritz FelschInstitute of Medical Statistics, Informatics and Epidemiology (IMSIE), University of Cologne, Koeln, Germany.
Lena HerichInstitute of Medical Statistics, Informatics and Epidemiology (IMSIE), University of Cologne, Koeln, Germany.
Kathrin CzarneckiDepartment of Health Care Management and Public Health, Schumpeter School of Business and Economics, University of Wuppertal, Wuppertal, Germany.
Corinna SchaffertDepartment of Health Care Management and Public Health, Schumpeter School of Business and Economics, University of Wuppertal, Wuppertal, Germany.
Ulrich JaehdeClinical Pharmacy, Institute of Pharmacy, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Juliane Köberlein-NeuDepartment of Health Care Management and Public Health, Schumpeter School of Business and Economics, University of Wuppertal, Wuppertal, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMedication reviews are recognized services to increase quality of therapy and reduce medication risks. The selection of eligible patients with potential to receive a major benefit is based on assumptions rather than on factual data. Acceptance of interprofessional collaboration is crucial to increase the quality of medication therapy.

objectiveThe research question was to identify and prioritize eligible patients for a medication review and to provide evidence-based criteria for patient selection. Acceptance of the prescribing general practitioner to implement pharmaceutical recommendations was measured and factors influencing physicians' acceptance were explored to obtain an impression on the extent of collaboration in medication review in an ambulatory care setting.

methodsBased on data of a cluster-randomized controlled study (WestGem-study), the correlation between patient parameters and the individual performance in a medication review was calculated in a multiple logistic regression model. Physician's acceptance of the suggested intervention was assessed using feedback forms. Influential factors were analyzed.

resultsThe number of drugs in use (p = 0.001), discrepancies between prescribed and used medicines (p = 0.014), the baseline Medication Appropriateness Index score (p<0.001) and the duration of the intervention (p = 0.006) could be identified as influential factors for a major benefit from a medication review, whereas morbidity (p>0.05) and a low kidney function (p>0.05) do not predetermine the outcome. Longitudinal patient care with repeated reviews showed higher interprofessional acceptance and superior patient benefit. A total of 54.9% of the recommendations in a medication review on drug therapy were accepted for implementation.

conclusionsThe number of drugs in use and medication reconciliation could be a first rational step in patient selection for a medication review. Most elderly, multimorbid patients with polymedication experience a similar chance of receiving a benefit from a medication review. Longitudinal patient care should be preferred over confined medication reviews. The acceptance of medication reviews by physicians supports further implementation into health care systems.

trial registrationISRCTN ISRCTN41595373.

Indexed as

Drug InteractionsMedication Therapy ManagementAgedAged, 80 and overAmbulatory CareCardiovascular DiseasesFemaleGeriatricsHumansMaleMedical RecordsPharmacistsPhysicians

Identifiers

PMID27253380
PMCPMC4890849

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.