Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35745678›Full record

ArticlePharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland)2022

Use of an Electronic Medication Management Support System in Patients with Polypharmacy in General Practice: A Quantitative Process Evaluation of the AdAM Trial.

Robin Brünn, Dorothea Lemke, Jale Basten, Petra Kellermann-Mühlhoff, Juliane Köberlein-Neu, Christiane Muth, Marjan van den Akker, On Behalf Of The AdAM Study Group

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. The Reasons for Physicians and Pharmacists' Acceptance of Clinical Support Systems in Saudi Arabia.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    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

8 authors.

Robin BrünnInstitute of General Practice, Goethe University, 60590 Frankfurt am Main, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-9460-8313
Dorothea LemkeInstitute of General Practice, Goethe University, 60590 Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Jale BastenDepartment of Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology, Ruhr University, 44789 Bochum, Germany.
Petra Kellermann-MühlhoffBARMER, Statutory Health Insurance, 42285 Wuppertal, Germany.
Juliane Köberlein-NeuCenter for Health Economics and Health Services Research, Schumpeter School of Business and Economics, University of Wuppertal, 42119 Wuppertal, Germany.
Christiane MuthInstitute of General Practice, Goethe University, 60590 Frankfurt am Main, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-8987-182X
Marjan van den AkkerInstitute of General Practice, Goethe University, 60590 Frankfurt am Main, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-1022-8637
On Behalf Of The AdAM Study Group

Funding

Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss 01NVF16006
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Polypharmacy is associated with a risk of negative health outcomes. Potentially inappropriate medications, interactions resulting from contradicting medical guidelines, and inappropriate monitoring, all increase the risk. This process evaluation (PE) of the AdAM study investigates implementation and use of a computerized decision-support system (CDSS). The CDSS analyzes medication appropriateness by including claims data, and hence provides general practitioners (GPs) with full access to patients' medical treatments. We based our PE on pseudonymized logbook entries into the CDSS and used the four dimensions of the Medical Research Council PE framework. Reach, which examines the extent to which the intended study population was included, and Dose, Fidelity, and Tailoring, which examine how the software was actually used by GPs. The PE was explorative and descriptive. Study participants were representative of the target population, except for patients receiving a high level of nursing care, as they were treated less frequently. GPs identified and corrected inappropriate prescriptions flagged by the CDSS. The frequency and intensity of interventions documented in the form of logbook entries lagged behind expectations, raising questions about implementation barriers to the intervention and the limitations of the PE. Impossibility to connect the CDSS to GPs' electronic medical records (EMR) of GPs due to technical conditions in the German healthcare system may have hindered the implementation of the intervention. Data logged in the CDSS may underestimate medication changes in patients, as documentation was voluntary and already included in EMR.

Indexed as

digital decision-supportgeneral practicehealth services researchmedication reviewpolypharmacyprocess evaluation

Identifiers

PMID35745678
PMCPMC9230750

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.