Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35596147›Full record

ReviewBMC primary care2022

Involving patients in medicines optimisation in general practice: a development study of the "PREparing Patients for Active Involvement in medication Review" (PREPAIR) tool.

Amanda Sandbæk, Marlene Christina Rosengaard Møller, Flemming Bro, Kirsten Høj, Line Due Christensen, Anna Mygind

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC primary care, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Consumer Involvement in the Design and Development of Medication Safety Interventions or Services in Primary Care: A Scoping Review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. 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

6 authors.

Amanda SandbækDepartment of Public Health, Aarhus University, 8000, Aarhus C, Denmark. amasa@ph.au.dk.
Marlene Christina Rosengaard MøllerResearch Unit for General Practice, 8000, Aarhus C, Denmark.
Flemming BroDepartment of Public Health, Aarhus University, 8000, Aarhus C, Denmark.
Kirsten HøjResearch Unit for General Practice, 8000, Aarhus C, Denmark.
Line Due ChristensenResearch Unit for General Practice, 8000, Aarhus C, Denmark.
Anna MygindResearch Unit for General Practice, 8000, Aarhus C, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMany patients have multiple health conditions and take multiple medications (polypharmacy). Active patient involvement may improve treatment outcomes and ensure patient-centred care. Yet, patient involvement remains a challenge in clinical practice. We aimed to develop and pilot test a questionnaire-based preparation and dialogue tool, the PREparing Patients for Active Involvement in medication Review (PREPAIR) tool, to encourage the involvement of patients with polypharmacy in medicines optimisation in general practice.

methodsWe conducted a literature review followed by a co-production process to develop the tool: a workshop with six GPs and pilot testing, including observations and interviews, with 22 patients, three GPs and three practice staff. During this process, we made continuous adaptations to the prototype. We analysed the qualitative data thematically, focusing on the development process and mechanisms of impact.

findingsThe final PREPAIR tool included five items concerning the patient's experience of 1) adverse drug reactions, 2) excess medication, 3) unnecessary medication, 4) medication satisfaction and 5) medication-related topics to discuss with the GP (open-ended question). The applied workflow during testing was as follows; the patient completed the PREPAIR tool at home, to encourage reflection on the medication, and brought it to the GP consultation. During the consultation, the GP and the patient reviewed the patient's responses and discussed potential medication-related problems. For some patients, the increased reflection led to worries about the medications. Still, the pilot testing showed that, when using the PREPAIR tool, the patients arrived at the clinic well prepared and empowered to speak. From the PREPAIR-supported dialogue, the GPs obtained a better understanding of patients' perspectives and provided a more patient-centred consultation. For the patients, the PREPAIR-supported dialogue ultimately promoted an increased sense of security, satisfaction and insight into their medication, despite initial worries for some patients.

conclusionsWe developed a brief tool to support active patient involvement in medication review in general practice. The PREPAIR-tool was well received by both patients and GPs and fitted well into the existing clinical practice. Our findings suggest that the PREPAIR-tool can support patient involvement during consultations and facilitate patient-centred care.

Indexed as

General PracticePatient ParticipationCross-Sectional StudiesHumansMedication ReviewMultimorbidityCo-productionDenmarkGeneral practiceHealth literacyIntervention developmentPatient-centered carePatient participationPolypharmacyQualitative researchQuestionnaire

Identifiers

PMID35596147
PMCPMC9121082

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.