Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35351709›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2022

Barriers and facilitators of successful deprescribing as described by older patients living with frailty, their informal carers and clinicians: a qualitative interview study.

George Peat, Beth Fylan, Iuri Marques, David K Raynor, Liz Breen, Janice Olaniyan, David Phillip Alldred

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.8field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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 2 institutions in 1 country.

George PeatSchool of Health and Life Sciences, University of Bradford, Bradford, West Yorkshire, UK gwpeat@bradford.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-0293-2456
Beth FylanYorkshire & Humber Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, NIHR, Bradford, England.ORCID 0000-0003-0599-4537
Iuri MarquesSchool of Pharmacy and Medical Sciences, University of Bradford, Bradford, UK.
David K RaynorSchool of Healthcare, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0306-5275
Liz BreenYorkshire & Humber Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, NIHR, Bradford, England.ORCID 0000-0001-5204-1187
Janice OlaniyanSchool of Health and Life Sciences, University of Bradford, Bradford, West Yorkshire, UK.
David Phillip AlldredYorkshire & Humber Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, NIHR, Bradford, England.ORCID 0000-0002-2525-4854
University of Bradford · GBUniversity of Leeds · GB

Funding

Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo explore the barriers/facilitators to deprescribing in primary care in England from the perspectives of clinicians, patients living with frailty who reside at home, and their informal carers, drawing on the Theoretical Domains Framework to identify behavioural components associated with barriers/facilitators of the process.

designExploratory qualitative study.

settingGeneral practice (primary care) in England.

participants9 patients aged 65+ living with frailty who attended a consultation to reduce or stop a medicine/s. 3 informal carers of patients living with frailty. 14 primary care clinicians including general practitioners, practice pharmacists and advanced nurse practitioners.

methodsQualitative semistructured interviews took place with patients living with frailty, their informal carers and clinicians. Patients (n=9) and informal carers (n=3) were interviewed two times: immediately after deprescribing and 5/6 weeks later. Clinicians (n=14) were interviewed once. In total, 38 interviews were undertaken. Framework analysis was applied to manage and analyse the data.

results6 themes associated with facilitators and barriers to deprescribing were generated, respectively, with each supported by between two and three subthemes. Identified facilitators of deprescribing with patients living with frailty included shared decision-making, gradual introduction of the topic, clear communication of the topic to the patient and multidisciplinary working. Identified barriers of deprescribing included consultation constraints, patients' fear of negative consequences and inaccessible terminology and information.

conclusionsThis paper offers timely insight into the barriers and facilitators to deprescribing for patients living with frailty within the context of primary care in England. As deprescribing continues to grow in national and international significance, it is important that future deprescribing interventions acknowledge the current barriers and facilitators and their associated behavioural components experienced by clinicians, patients living with frailty and their informal carers to improve the safety and effectiveness of the process.

Indexed as

DeprescriptionsFrailtyGeneral PractitionersCaregiversHumansQualitative Researchgeriatric medicineprimary carequalitative research

Identifiers

PMID35351709
PMCPMC8961139
OpenAlexW4220827831

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.