Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35241910›Full record

ArticlePatient preference and adherence2022

Medication Supports at Transitions Between Hospital and Other Care Settings: A Rapid Scoping Review.

Shawn Varghese, Shoshana Hahn-Goldberg, ZhiDi Deng, Glyneva Bradley-Ridout, Sara J T Guilcher, Lianne Jeffs, Craig Madho, Karen Okrainec, Zahava R S Rosenberg-Yunger, Lisa M McCarthy

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

10 authors.

Shawn VargheseLeslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-6684-1353
Shoshana Hahn-GoldbergLeslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-7016-5295
ZhiDi DengLeslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-7402-4254
Glyneva Bradley-RidoutLeslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-2879-9056
Sara J T GuilcherLeslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-9552-9139
Lianne JeffsInstitute for Health Policy Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-3522-2549
Craig MadhoOpenLab, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-8424-2688
Karen OkrainecToronto General Research Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-0754-1830
Zahava R S Rosenberg-YungerTed Rogers School of Management, School of Health Services Management, Ryerson University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-5187-1154
Lisa M McCarthyLeslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-9087-1077

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTransitions in care (TiC) often involves managing medication changes and can be vulnerable moments for patients. Medication support, where medication changes are reviewed with patients and caregivers to increase knowledge and confidence about taking medications, is key to successful transitions. Little is known about the optimal tools and processes for providing medication support. This study aimed to identify describe patient or caregiver-centered medication support processes or tools that have been studied within 3 months following TiC between hospitals and other care settings.

methodsRapid scoping review; English-language publications from OVID MEDLINE, OVID EMBASE, Cochrane Library and EBSCO CINAHL (2004-July 2019) that assessed medication support interventions delivered within 3 months following discharge were included. A subset of titles and abstracts were assessed by two reviewers to evaluate agreement and once reasonable agreement was achieved, the remainder were assessed by one reviewer. Eligibility assessment for full-text articles and data charting were completed by an experienced reviewer.

resultsA total of 7671 unique citations were assessed; 60 studies were included. Half of the studies (n = 30/60) were randomized controlled trials. Most studies (n = 45/60) did not discuss intervention development, particularly whether end users were involved in intervention design. Many studies (n = 37/60) assessed multi-component interventions with written/print and verbal education components. Few studies (n = 5/60) included an electronic component. Very few studies (n = 4/60) included study populations at high risk of adverse events at TiC (eg, people with physical or intellectual disabilities, low literacy or language barriers).

conclusionThe majority of studies were randomized controlled trials involving verbal counselling and/or physical document delivered to the patient before discharge. Few studies involved electronic components or considered patients at high-risk of adverse events. Future studies would benefit from improved reporting on development, consideration for electronic interventions, and improved reporting on patients with higher medication-related needs.

Indexed as

care transitionscontinuity of patient caremedication counselingpatient dischargepatient educationrapid scoping review

Identifiers

PMID35241910
PMCPMC8887864

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.