Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32184575›Full record

ReviewPatient preference and adherence2020

Methods to Assess Patient Preferences in Old Age Pharmacotherapy - A Systematic Review.

Annette Eidam, Anja Roth, André Lacroix, Sabine Goisser, Hanna M Seidling, Walter E Haefeli, Jürgen M Bauer

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Patient preference and adherence, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Moving the Dial on Heart Failure Patient Adherence Rates.Patient preference and adherence · 2020
    Review
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.

Annette EidamCenter of Geriatric Medicine, Heidelberg University, AGAPLESION Bethanien Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg 69126, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-1490-9456
Anja RothCenter of Geriatric Medicine, Heidelberg University, AGAPLESION Bethanien Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg 69126, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-1995-654X
André LacroixCenter of Geriatric Medicine, Heidelberg University, AGAPLESION Bethanien Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg 69126, Germany.
Sabine GoisserCenter of Geriatric Medicine, Heidelberg University, AGAPLESION Bethanien Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg 69126, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-8141-3581
Hanna M SeidlingDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacoepidemiology, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg 69120, Germany.
Walter E HaefeliDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacoepidemiology, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg 69120, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-0672-6876
Jürgen M BauerCenter of Geriatric Medicine, Heidelberg University, AGAPLESION Bethanien Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg 69126, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe aim of this systematic review was to identify methods used to assess medication preferences in older adults and evaluate their advantages and disadvantages with respect to their applicability to the context of multimorbidity and polypharmacy. MATERIAL AND

methodsThree electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, PsycINFO) were searched. Eligible studies elicited individual treatment or outcome preferences in a context that involved long-term pharmacological treatment options. We included studies with a study population aged ≥ 65 years and/or with a mean or median age of ≥ 75 years. Qualitative studies, studies assessing preferences for only two different treatments, and studies targeting preferences for life-sustaining treatments were excluded. The identified preference measurement methods were evaluated based on four criteria (time budget, cognitive demand, variety of pharmacological aspects, and link with treatment strategies) judged to be relevant for the elicitation of patient preferences in polypharmacy.

resultsSixty articles met the eligibility criteria and were included in the narrative synthesis. Fifty-five different instruments to assess patient preferences, based on 24 different elicitation methods, were identified. The most commonly applied preference measurement techniques were "medication willingness" (description of a specific medication with inquiry of the participant's willingness to take it), discrete choice experiments, Likert scale-based questionnaires, and rank prioritization. The majority of the instruments were created for disease-specific or context-specific settings. Only three instruments (Outcome Prioritization Tool, a complex intervention, "MediMol" questionnaire) dealt with the broader issue of geriatric multimorbidity. Only seven of the identified tools showed somewhat favorable characteristics for a potential use of the respective method in the context of polypharmacy.

conclusionUp to now, few instruments have been specifically designed for the assessment of medication preferences in older patients with multimorbidity. To facilitate valid preference elicitation in the context of geriatric polypharmacy, future research should focus on suitable characteristics of existing techniques to develop new measurement approaches for this increasingly relevant population.

Indexed as

multimorbiditymultiple chronic conditionsolder adultsoutcome prioritiespatient-centeredpolypharmacy

Identifiers

PMID32184575
PMCPMC7061412

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.