Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31504572›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2019

Reduction of inappropriate medication in older populations by electronic decision support (the PRIMA-eDS project): a survey of general practitioners' experiences.

Anja Rieckert, Anne-Lisa Teichmann, Eva Drewelow, Celine Kriechmayr, Giuliano Piccoliori, Adrine Woodham, Andreas Sönnichsen

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. 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

7 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.

Anja RieckertDepartment of Human Medicine, Institute of General Practice and Family Medicine, Faculty of Health, Witten/Herdecke University, Witten, Germany.
Anne-Lisa TeichmannDepartment of Human Medicine, Institute of General Practice and Family Medicine, Faculty of Health, Witten/Herdecke University, Witten, Germany.
Eva DrewelowInstitute of General Practice, Rostock University Medical Center, Rostock, Germany.
Celine KriechmayrInstitute of General Practice, Family Medicine and Preventive Medicine, Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburg, Austria.
Giuliano PiccolioriSouth Tyrolean Academy for General Practice, Bolzano, Italy.
Adrine WoodhamDivision of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Andreas SönnichsenDivision of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Manchester Academic Health Science Centre · GBWitten/Herdecke University · DEEurac Research · ITParacelsus Medical University · ATUniversity of Rostock · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveWe sought to investigate the experiences of general practitioners (GPs) with an electronic decision support tool to reduce inappropriate polypharmacy in older patients (the PRIMA-eDS [Polypharmacy in chronic diseases: Reduction of Inappropriate Medication and Adverse drug events in older populations by electronic Decision Support] tool) in a multinational sample of GPs and to quantify the findings from a prior qualitative study on the PRIMA-eDS-tool. MATERIALS AND

methodsAlongside the cluster randomized controlled PRIMA-eDS trial, a survey was conducted in all 5 participating study centers (Bolzano, Italy; Manchester, United Kingdom; Salzburg, Austria; Rostock, Germany; and Witten, Germany) between October 2016 and July 2017. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and chi-square tests.

resultsNinety-one (n = 160) percent of the 176 questionnaires were returned. Thirty-two percent of the respondents reported that they did not cease drugs because of the medication check. The 68% who had discontinued drugs comprise 57% who had stopped on average 1 drug and 11% who had stopped 2 drugs or more per patient. The PRIMA-eDS tool was found to be useful (69%) and the recommendations were found to help to increase awareness (86%). The greatest barrier to implementing deprescribing recommendations was the perceived necessity of the medication (69%). The majority of respondents (65%) would use the electronic medication check in routine practice if it was part of the electronic health record.

conclusionsGPs generally viewed the PRIMA-eDS medication check as useful and as informative. Recommendations were not always followed due to various reasons. Many GPs would use the medication check if integrated into the electronic health record.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelDrug Therapy, Computer-AssistedGeneral PractitionersAgedAttitude to ComputersEuropeEvidence-Based MedicineHealth Care SurveysHumansInappropriate PrescribingPolypharmacyRandomized Controlled Trials as Topicageddeprescribingevidence-based medicinegeneral practitionersmultimorbidity

Identifiers

PMID31504572
PMCPMC6798559
OpenAlexW2972077411

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.