Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29351363›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical pharmacy and therapeutics2018

Carers' experiences of home enteral feeding: A survey exploring medicines administration challenges and strategies.

D Alsaeed, D Furniss, A Blandford, F Smith, M Orlu

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical pharmacy and therapeutics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.

D AlsaeedSchool of Pharmacy, Department of Pharmacy Practice and Policy, University College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0187-3252
D FurnissUCL Institute of Digital Health, University College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2114-4367
A BlandfordUCL Institute of Digital Health, University College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3198-7122
F SmithSchool of Pharmacy, Department of Pharmacy Practice and Policy, University College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9565-758X
M OrluUCL Institute of Digital Health, University College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2047-5025
London Centre for Nanotechnology · GBUniversity College London · GBUniversity of London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

WHAT IS KNOWN AND

objectivesThe use of enteral tube feeding at home is becoming more widespread, with patients ranging in age and diseases. Dysphagia and swallowing difficulties can compromise nutritional intake and the administration of oral medications, affecting therapeutic outcomes negatively. Carers' experiences of medicines administration and medicines optimization have not been explored fully. The objectives of this study were to identify issues carers experience in medicines administration; the strategies they have developed to cope; and suggestions to improve the medicines administration process.

methodsAn online survey was promoted nationally; 42 carers completed it. Descriptive statistical analysis was applied, as well as thematic analysis of open-ended responses. Results were compared against the 4 principles of medicines optimization. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: 93% of respondents administered medications with enteral feeding tubes, but only 62% had received advice from healthcare professionals and only 8% had received written information on how to do so. Responses identified 5 medicines administration issues experienced by carers; 4 strategies they developed to cope; and 3 main areas of suggestions to improve medicines administration via enteral feeding at home. WHAT IS NEW AND

conclusionThe 4 principles of medicines optimization have not previously been applied to enteral feeding. We present a novel account of carers' experiences, for example coping with ill-suited formulations and a lack of training and support, which should inform better practice (Principle 1). Carers sometimes experience suboptimal choice of medicines (Principle 2). Carers' practices are not always well-informed and may affect therapeutic outcomes and safety (Principle 3). There is scope for improvement in carer training, education and support to better support medicines optimization (Principle 4).

Indexed as

Home Care ServicesAdaptation, PsychologicalAdolescentAdultAgedCaregiversChildDeglutition DisordersEnteral NutritionHumansMiddle AgedPharmaceutical PreparationsSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung AdultPharmaceutical Preparationscarerschallengesfeeding tubesmedicine administrationstrategies

Identifiers

PMID29351363
PMCPMC6849733
OpenAlexW2789262411

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.