Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28212616›Full record

ArticleBMC family practice2017

General practitioners' views on (long-term) prescription and use of problematic and potentially inappropriate medication for oldest-old patients-A qualitative interview study with GPs (CIM-TRIAD study).

Nadine Janis Pohontsch, Kathrin Heser, Antje Löffler, Britta Haenisch, Debora Parker, Tobias Luck, Steffi G Riedel-Heller, Wolfgang Maier, Frank Jessen, Martin Scherer

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC family practice, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

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

  1. Spinal manipulative therapy in older adults with chronic low back pain: an individual participant data meta-analysis.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

10 authors.

Nadine Janis PohontschDepartment of General Practice/Primary Care, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistr. 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany. n.pohontsch@uke.de.
Kathrin HeserDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Bonn, Sigmund-Freud-Straße 25, 53105, Bonn, Germany.
Antje LöfflerInstitute of Health, Brandenburg University of Technology, Großenhainer Straße 57, 01968, Senftenberg, Germany.
Britta HaenischGerman Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), Kurt-Georg-Kiesinger-Allee 3, 53175, Bonn, Germany.
Debora ParkerGerman Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), Kurt-Georg-Kiesinger-Allee 3, 53175, Bonn, Germany.
Tobias LuckInstitute of Social Medicine, Occupational Health and Public Health (ISAP), University of Leipzig, Philipp-Rosenthal-Str. 55, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
Steffi G Riedel-HellerInstitute of Social Medicine, Occupational Health and Public Health (ISAP), University of Leipzig, Philipp-Rosenthal-Str. 55, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
Wolfgang MaierDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Bonn, Sigmund-Freud-Straße 25, 53105, Bonn, Germany.
Frank JessenGerman Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), Kurt-Georg-Kiesinger-Allee 3, 53175, Bonn, Germany.
Martin SchererDepartment of General Practice/Primary Care, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistr. 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPotentially inappropriate medication (PIM) is defined as medication with uncertain therapeutic effects and/or potential adverse drug reactions outweighing the clinical benefits. The prescription rate of PIM for oldest-old patients is high despite the existence of lists of PIM (e.g. the PRISCUS list) and efforts to raise awareness. This study aims at identifying general practitioners' views on PIM and aspects affecting the (long-term) use of PIM.

methodsAs part of the CIM-TRIAD study, we conducted semi-structured, qualitative interviews with 47 general practitioners, discussing 25 patients with and 22 without PIM (according to the PRISCUS list). The interview guideline included generic and patient-specific questions. Interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim. We content analyzed the interviews using deductive and inductive category development.

resultsThe majority of the general practitioners were not aware of the PRISCUS list. Agents deemed potentially inappropriate from the general practitioners' point of view and the PRISCUS list are not completely superimposable. General practitioners named their criteria to identify appropriate medication for elderly patients (e.g. renal function, cognitive state) and emphasized the importance of monitoring. We identified prescription- (e.g. benzodiazepines on alternative private prescription), medication- (e.g. subjective perception that PIM has no alternative), general practitioner- (e.g. general practitioner relies on specialists), patient- (e.g. "demanding high-user", positive subjective benefit-risk-ratio) and system-related aspects (e.g. specialists lacking holistic view, interface problems) related to the (long term) use of PIM.

conclusionsWhile the PRISCUS list does not seem to play a decisive role in general practice, general practitioners are well aware of risks associated with PIM. Our study identifies some starting points for a safer handling of PIM, e.g. stronger dissemination of the PRISCUS list, better compensation of medication reviews, "positive lists", adequate patient information, multifaceted interventions and improved communication between general practitioners and specialists.

Indexed as

Aged, 80 and overDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsFamily PracticeFemaleGeneral PractitionersGermanyHumansInappropriate PrescribingIncidenceInterviews as TopicMalePotentially Inappropriate Medication ListPrescriptionsQualitative ResearchRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsGeneral practiceOldest-old patientsPotentially inappropriate medicationPRISCUS listQualitative interviews

Identifiers

PMID28212616
PMCPMC5395870

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.