Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34794961›Full record

SynthesisFamily medicine and community health2021

Factors associated with potentially inappropriate prescriptions and barriers to medicines optimisation among older adults in primary care settings: a systematic review.

Zhijie Xu, Xujian Liang, Yue Zhu, Yiting Lu, Yuanqu Ye, Lizheng Fang, Yi Qian

Erratum issuedOpen access · diamondAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Family medicine and community health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.2field-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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  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

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Zhijie XuDepartment of General Practice, The Second Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China.
Xujian LiangDepartment of General Practice, Zhejiang University School of Medicine Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China.
Yue ZhuDepartment of General Practice, Zhejiang University School of Medicine Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China.
Yiting LuZhongdai Community Healthcare Center, Huzhou, China.
Yuanqu YeBaili Community Healthcare Center, The People's Hospital of Longhua, Shenzhen, China.
Lizheng FangDepartment of General Practice, Zhejiang University School of Medicine Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China.
Yi QianSchool of Public Health, Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China starshines721@163.com.ORCID 0000-0002-1898-2458
Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital · CNHangzhou Normal University · CNSecond Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University · CNShenZhen People’s Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo identify factors that likely contribute to potentially inappropriate prescriptions (PIPs) among older adults in primary care settings, as well as barriers to medicines optimisation and recommended potential solutions.

designSystematic review. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Quantitative studies that analysed the factors associated with PIPs among older adults (≥65 years) in primary care settings, and qualitative studies that explored perceived barriers and potential solutions to medicines optimisation for this population. INFORMATION SOURCES: PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, CNKI and Wanfang.

resultsOf the 13 167 studies identified, 50 were included (14 qualitative, 34 cross-sectional and 2 cohort). Nearly all quantitative studies examined patient-related non-clinical factors (eg, age) and clinical factors (eg, number of medications) and nine studies examined prescriber-related factors (eg, physician age). A greater number of medications were identified as positively associated with PIPs in 25 quantitative studies, and a higher number of comorbidities, physical comorbidities and psychiatric comorbidities were identified as patient-related clinical risk factors for PIPs. However, other factors showed inconsistent associations with the PIPs. Barriers to medicines optimisation emerged within four analytical themes: prescriber related (eg, inadequate knowledge, concerns of adverse consequences, clinical inertia, lack of communication), patient related (eg, limited understanding, patient non-adherence, drug dependency), environment related (eg, lack of integrated care, insufficient investment, time constraints) and technology related (eg, complexity of implementation and inapplicable guidance). Recommended potential solutions were based on each theme of the barriers identified accordingly (eg, prescriber-related factors: incorporating training courses into continuing medical education).

conclusionsOlder adults with more drugs prescribed and comorbidities may have a greater risk of receiving PIPs in the primary care setting, but it remains unclear whether other factors are related. Barriers to medicines optimisation among primary care older adults comprise multiple factors, and evidence-based and targeted interventions are needed to address these difficulties. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020216258.

Indexed as

Inappropriate PrescribingPrimary Health CareAgedCohort StudiesCross-Sectional StudiesHumansQualitative Researchgeneral practiceHealth Services for the Agedpharmacologyphysiciansprimary care

Identifiers

PMID34794961
PMCPMC8603289
OpenAlexW3212733158

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.