Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34550540›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2021

Patient values and preferences on polypharmacy and deprescribing: a scoping review.

Evan Forest, Melissa Ireland, Uma Yakandawala, Teresa Cavett, Lalitha Raman-Wilms, Jamie Falk, Diana McMillan, Rhys Linthorst, Leanne Kosowan, Lisa Labine and 1 more

Abstract readScoping Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  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

11 authors.

Evan ForestDepartment of Community Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
Melissa IrelandCollege of Pharmacy, University of Manitoba, Apotex Centre, 750 McDermot Avenue, Winnipeg, MB, R3E 0T5, Canada.
Uma YakandawalaCollege of Pharmacy, University of Manitoba, Apotex Centre, 750 McDermot Avenue, Winnipeg, MB, R3E 0T5, Canada.
Teresa CavettDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
Lalitha Raman-WilmsCollege of Pharmacy, University of Manitoba, Apotex Centre, 750 McDermot Avenue, Winnipeg, MB, R3E 0T5, Canada.
Jamie FalkCollege of Pharmacy, University of Manitoba, Apotex Centre, 750 McDermot Avenue, Winnipeg, MB, R3E 0T5, Canada.
Diana McMillanCollege of Nursing, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
Rhys LinthorstDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
Leanne KosowanDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
Lisa LabineDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
Christine LeongCollege of Pharmacy, University of Manitoba, Apotex Centre, 750 McDermot Avenue, Winnipeg, MB, R3E 0T5, Canada. Christine.leong@umanitoba.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0033-6877

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background Understanding how patient values and preferences towards polypharmacy and deprescribing have been studied is important to gain insight on current knowledge in this area and to identify knowledge gaps. Aim To describe methods and outcomes for studying patient values and preferences towards polypharmacy and deprescribing, and to identify gaps in the existing literature. Method A scoping review was conducted on English-language studies that examined patient preferences and values related to polypharmacy and/or deprescribing among community-dwelling adults. MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, PsycINFO, EconLit, Social Science Citation Index, Science Citation Index Expanded, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and CINAHL/AgeLine were searched. Results Thirty articles were included. Surveys (n = 17, 56.7%), interviews/focus groups (n = 9, 30.0%), and mixed methods (n = 3, 10.0%), were commonly used methods. Patients Attitudes Towards Deprescribing (PATD) was the most common tool used (n = 9, 30.0%). Twelve themes related to attitudes, social pressure, and control of polypharmacy/deprescribing were identified. The most frequently-encountered themes included desire or willingness to reduce medication load and influence of healthcare provider on medication use. Conclusion PATD was commonly used to assess preferences and values towards polypharmacy and limited knowledge on patient-important outcomes were addressed. Future research should focus on shared decision-making and communicating risk versus benefit of medications.

Indexed as

DeprescriptionsPolypharmacyAdultAttitudeHumansIndependent LivingSurveys and QuestionnairesDeprescribingPatient preferencesPatient valuesPolypharmacy

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.