Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29668763›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

A case study of polypharmacy management in nine European countries: Implications for change management and implementation.

Jennifer McIntosh, Albert Alonso, Katie MacLure, Derek Stewart, Thomas Kempen, Alpana Mair, Margarida Castel-Branco, Carles Codina, Fernando Fernandez-Llimos, Glenda Fleming and 13 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 69 citations in OpenAlex.

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

23 authors at 13 institutions in 8 countries.

Jennifer McIntoshDepartament de Recerca i Innovació, Fundació Clínic per a la Recerca Biomèdica, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-8140-9304
Albert AlonsoDepartament de Recerca i Innovació, Fundació Clínic per a la Recerca Biomèdica, Barcelona, Spain.
Katie MacLureSchool of Pharmacy and Life Sciences, Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, Scotland.
Derek StewartSchool of Pharmacy and Life Sciences, Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, Scotland.
Thomas KempenPharmacy Department, Uppsala University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden.
Alpana MairEffective prescribing and therapeutics, Health and social care directorate, Scottish Government, Edinburgh, Scotland.
Margarida Castel-BrancoLaboratory of Pharmacology and Pharmaceutical Care, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal.
Carles CodinaServei de Farmàcia, Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Fernando Fernandez-LlimosInstitute for Medicines Research, Department of Social Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Lisbon, Lisboa, Portugal.
Glenda FlemingPharmacy Department and Regional Medicines Optimisation Innovation Centre(MOIC) Northern Health and Social Care Trust, Antrim, Northern Ireland.
Dimitra GennimataDepartment of Social and Education Policy, University of Peloponnese, Korinthos, Greece.
Ulrika GillespiePharmacy Department, Uppsala University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden.
Cathy HarrisonDepartment of Health, Belfast, Northern Ireland.
Maddalena IllarioFederico II University Hospital, Naples, Italy.
Ulrike Junius-WalkerInstitute of General Practice, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
Christos F KampolisDepartment of Social and Education Policy, University of Peloponnese, Korinthos, Greece.
Przemyslaw KardasDepartment of Family Medicine, Medical University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland.
Pawel LewekDepartment of Family Medicine, Medical University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland.
João MalvaInstitute of Biomedical Imaging and Life Sciences (IBILI) and Institute of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal.
Enrica MendittoCIRFF, Center of Pharmacoeconomics, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.
Claire ScullinClinical & Practice Research Group, School of Pharmacy, Queen's University, Belfast, Northern Ireland.
Birgitt WieseInstitute of General Practice, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
SIMPATHY Consortium
Fundació Clínic per a la Recerca Biomèdica · ESMedical University of Lodz · PLMedizinische Hochschule Hannover · DERobert Gordon University · GBUniversity of Coimbra · PTUniversity of Peloponnese · GRUppsala University Hospital · SEFederico II University Hospital · ITHospital Clínic de Barcelona · ESQueen's University Belfast · GBScottish Government · GBUniversity of Lisbon · PTUniversity of Naples Federico II · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMultimorbidity and its associated polypharmacy contribute to an increase in adverse drug events, hospitalizations, and healthcare spending. This study aimed to address: what exists regarding polypharmacy management in the European Union (EU); why programs were, or were not, developed; and, how identified initiatives were developed, implemented, and sustained.

methodsChange management principles (Kotter) and normalization process theory (NPT) informed data collection and analysis. Nine case studies were conducted in eight EU countries: Germany (Lower Saxony), Greece, Italy (Campania), Poland, Portugal, Spain (Catalonia), Sweden (Uppsala), and the United Kingdom (Northern Ireland and Scotland). The workflow included a review of country/region specific polypharmacy policies, key informant interviews with stakeholders involved in policy development and implementation and, focus groups of clinicians and managers. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis of individual cases and framework analysis across cases.

resultsPolypharmacy initiatives were identified in five regions (Catalonia, Lower Saxony, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Uppsala) and included all care settings. There was agreement, even in cases without initiatives, that polypharmacy is a significant issue to address. Common themes regarding the development and implementation of polypharmacy management initiatives were: locally adapted solutions, organizational culture supporting innovation and teamwork, adequate workforce training, multidisciplinary teams, changes in workflow, redefinition of roles and responsibilities of professionals, policies and legislation supporting the initiative, and data management and information and communication systems to assist development and implementation. Depending on the setting, these were considered either facilitators or barriers to implementation.

conclusionWithin the studied EU countries, polypharmacy management was not widely addressed. These results highlight the importance of change management and theory-based implementation strategies, and provide examples of polypharmacy management initiatives that can assist managers and policymakers in developing new programs or scaling up existing ones, particularly in places currently lacking such initiatives.

Indexed as

PolypharmacyDisease ManagementEuropeHumans

Identifiers

PMID29668763
PMCPMC5905890
OpenAlexW2800400743

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.