ArticleBMC geriatrics2024
General practitioners' views on inappropriate prescribing for older patients: a qualitative study through focus groups.
Article in BMC geriatrics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 'You get a different mindset' - primary care physicians' perceptions of interprofessional medication reviews for patients living independently.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInappropriate prescribing (IP) is a common problem in the older population. Despite numerous attempts to tackle this issue, it remains a public health concern. In most European countries, general practitioners (GPs) are responsible for global primary care and are thus gatekeepers for the adequacy of medicines, specifically for older people. An in-depth analysis of the situation is necessary to understand why this phenomenon is still prevalent and to identify solutions that could help avoid IP in primary practice.
methodA qualitative study based on five focus groups (FG) comprising nine to thirteen general practitioners was conducted in the French-speaking part of Belgium. Participants were recruited among the Local Medical Evaluation Groups (LMEG) and selected to guarantee heterogeneity in working organisations, years of professional experience, gender and age. All interviews were recorded with prior agreement and transcribed in verbatims. The transcripts were coded and analysed to highlight the primary themes, considering dominant and marginal discourses.
resultsFifty four GPs participated in the study, with an average experience of 30 years. IPs are perceived as a significant problem in the older population, leading to dangerous health situations. The issue is associated with polypharmacy and multimorbidity, and GPs stated to manage IP using their clinical experience. Most of the study participants faced difficulties managing IP, mostly due to the specificity and complexity of elderly care. Indeed, managing an older patient is challenging due to medical complexity, poor adherence to drug regimes, or low medical literacy. In addition, the medical environment of general practice is challenging, with multiple providers, lack of time, prescribing routine and the absence of effective communication with specialists or other care providers. Additionally, the tools and support available to help medication management in primary care are inadequate. Enhancing collaboration with pharmacists is perceived as a strong potential facilitator.
conclusionThis article addresses the complex management of IP in the old age, from the point of view of GPs. Interesting clues were highlighted, like the need to clarify roles of healthcare providers, the better fit of tools to facilitate medication's review with particularities of GPs needs and the empowerment of pharmacist collaboration.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.