Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36042454›Full record

ReviewBMC medicine2022

Optimising a person-centred approach to stopping medicines in older people with multimorbidity and polypharmacy using the DExTruS framework: a realist review.

Amadea Turk, Geoffrey Wong, Kamal R Mahtani, Michelle Maden, Ruaraidh Hill, Ed Ranson, Emma Wallace, Janet Krska, Dee Mangin, Richard Byng and 2 more

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC medicine, 2022. 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 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Exploring the implementation and integration of structured medication reviews in primary care: a qualitative evaluation using normalisation process theory.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.

Amadea TurkNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5139-0016
Geoffrey WongNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK.
Kamal R MahtaniNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK.
Michelle MadenLiverpool Reviews & Implementation Group, Institute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 3BX, UK.
Ruaraidh HillLiverpool Reviews & Implementation Group, Institute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 3BX, UK.
Ed RansonAcademy of Primary Care, Hull York Medical School, Allam Medical Building, University of Hull, Hull, HU6 7RX, UK.
Emma WallaceDepartment of General Practice RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dublin 2, Ireland.
Janet KrskaMedway School of Pharmacy, Universities of Greenwich and Kent, Chatham Maritime, Kent, ME4 4TB, UK.
Dee ManginDepartment of Family Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, L8P 1H6, Canada.
Richard ByngCommunity and Primary Care Research Group, Peninsula Medical School, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, PL4 8AA, UK.
Daniel LassersonHealth Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK.
Joanne ReeveAcademy of Primary Care, Hull York Medical School, Allam Medical Building, University of Hull, Hull, HU6 7RX, UK. joanne.reeve@hyms.ac.uk.
University of Oxford · GBUniversity of Hull · GBUniversity of Liverpool · GBMcMaster University · CAMedway School of Pharmacy · GBUniversity of Plymouth · GBUniversity of Warwick · GB

Funding

Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTackling problematic polypharmacy requires tailoring the use of medicines to individual circumstances and may involve the process of deprescribing. Deprescribing can cause anxiety and concern for clinicians and patients. Tailoring medication decisions often entails beyond protocol decision-making, a complex process involving emotional and cognitive work for healthcare professionals and patients. We undertook realist review to highlight and understand the interactions between different factors involved in deprescribing and to develop a final programme theory that identifies and explains components of good practice that support a person-centred approach to deprescribing in older patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy.

methodsThe realist approach involves identifying underlying causal mechanisms and exploring how, and under what conditions they work. We conducted a search of electronic databases which were supplemented by citation checking and consultation with stakeholders to identify other key documents. The review followed the key steps outlined by Pawson et al. and followed the RAMESES standards for realist syntheses.

resultsWe included 119 included documents from which data were extracted to produce context-mechanism-outcome configurations (CMOCs) and a final programme theory. Our programme theory recognises that deprescribing is a complex intervention influenced by a multitude of factors. The components of our final programme theory include the following: a supportive infrastructure that provides clear guidance around professional responsibilities and that enables multidisciplinary working and continuity of care, consistent access to high-quality relevant patient contextual data, the need to support the creation of a shared explanation and understanding of the meaning and purpose of medicines and a trial and learn approach that provides space for monitoring and continuity. These components may support the development of trust which may be key to managing the uncertainty and in turn optimise outcomes. These components are summarised in the novel DExTruS framework.

conclusionOur findings recognise the complex interpretive practice and decision-making involved in medication management and identify key components needed to support best practice. Our findings have implications for how we design medication review consultations, professional training and for patient records/data management. Our review also highlights the role that trust plays both as a central element of tailored prescribing and a potential outcome of good practice in this area.

Indexed as

MultimorbidityPolypharmacyAgedHealth PersonnelHumansDeprescribingEvidence synthesisPerson-centred carePolypharmacyRealist review

Identifiers

PMID36042454
PMCPMC9429627
OpenAlexW4293695099

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.