Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27449802›Full record

ArticleBMC family practice2016

Why do family doctors prescribe potentially inappropriate medication to elderly patients?

Karen Voigt, Mandy Gottschall, Juliane Köberlein-Neu, Jeannine Schübel, Nadine Quint, Antje Bergmann

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC family practice, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
5.6field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 62 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Prescriptions for Potentially Inappropriate Medication (PIM).Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Karen VoigtDepartment of General Practice/Medical Clinic III, Medical School, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany. Karen.Voigt@uniklinikum-dresden.de.
Mandy GottschallDepartment of General Practice/Medical Clinic III, Medical School, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Juliane Köberlein-NeuDepartment of Health Care Management and Public Health, Schumpeter School of Business and Economics, University of Wuppertal, Wuppertal, Germany.
Jeannine SchübelDepartment of General Practice/Medical Clinic III, Medical School, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Nadine QuintDepartment of General Practice/Medical Clinic III, Medical School, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Antje BergmannDepartment of General Practice/Medical Clinic III, Medical School, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
TU Dresden · DEUniversity of Wuppertal · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBased on changes in pharmacokinetics and -dynamics in elderly patients, there are potentially inappropriate medications (PIM) that should be avoided in patients aged ≥ 65 years. Current studies showed prescription rates of PIM between 22.5 and 28.4 % in the primary care setting. The evidence concerning reasons for PIM prescription by FPs is limited.

methodsThis mixed method study consisted of three research parts: 1) semi-standardized content analysis of patients' records, 2) qualitative interviews with FPs using a) open questions and b) selected patient-specific case vignettes and 3) qualitative interviews with FPs' medical assistants. The integration of qualitative interviews was used to explain the quantitative results (triangulation design). PIM were identified according to the German PRISCUS list. Descriptive and multivariate statistical analysis was done using SPSS 22.0. Qualitative content analysis of interviews was used to classify the content of the interviews for indicating pertinent categories. All data were pseudonymously recorded and analyzed.

resultsContent analysis of 1846 patients' records and interviews with 7 related FPs were conducted. Elderly patients [n = 1241, mean age: 76, females: 56.6 %] were characterized in average by 8.3 documented chronic diagnosis. 23.9 % of elderly patients received at least one PIM prescription. Sedatives/hypnotics were the most frequent prescribed PIM-drugs (13.7 %). Mental disorders, gender and number of long-term medication were detected as predictors for the probability of a PIM prescription. Common reported reasons for PIM prescription by FPs concerned limited knowledge regarding PIM, limited applicability of PIM lists in daily practice, lack of time, having no alternatives in medication, stronger patient-related factors than age that influence prescription, own bad experiences regarding changes of medication or refusal of following prescriptions of sedative/hypnotics.

conclusionsIt is essential to see FPs in a complex decision making situation with several influencing factors on their prescribing, including: patient-oriented prioritization, FPs' experiences in daily practice, FPs' knowledge regarding existing recommendations and their trust in it and organizational characteristics of FPs' daily medical practice. These pros and cons of PIM prescription in elderly patients should be considered in FPs' advanced training.

Indexed as

Practice Patterns, Physicians'AdultAgedAged, 80 and overChronic DiseaseClinical CompetenceComorbidityFamily PracticeFemaleHumansHypnotics and SedativesInappropriate PrescribingMaleMental DisordersMiddle AgedPolypharmacyHypnotics and SedativesFamily doctorMixed methodsPolypharmacyPotentially inappropriate medication

Identifiers

PMID27449802
PMCPMC4957869
OpenAlexW2483247343

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.