Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40562447›Full record

Trial reportThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2026

Patients' experiences of a patient-centred polypharmacy medication review intervention: a mixed-methods study.

Lorna J Duncan, Deborah McCahon, Barbara Caddick, Roxanne M Parslow, Katrina Turner, Carolyn A Chew-Graham, Bruce Guthrie, Rupert A Payne

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Lorna J DuncanCentre for Academic Primary Care, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9629-030X
Deborah McCahonCentre for Academic Primary Care, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK deborah.mccahon@bristol.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-2768-293X
Barbara CaddickCentre for Academic Primary Care, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3032-0430
Roxanne M ParslowCentre for Academic Primary Care, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3612-7121
Katrina TurnerCentre for Academic Primary Care, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6375-2918
Carolyn A Chew-GrahamSchool of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9722-9981
Bruce GuthrieAdvanced Care Research Centre, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4191-4880
Rupert A PayneExeter Collaboration for Academic Primary Care, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5842-4645

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPeople prescribed multiple medications need regular review to optimise medication and improve health outcomes. Although the most effective method to improve inappropriate polypharmacy remains unclear, medication reviews incorporating patient-centred care and shared decision making are believed to be key to achieving optimal outcomes.

aimTo explore patients' experiences of an intervention to deliver patient-centred polypharmacy medication review in primary care. DESIGN AND

settingA mixed-methods process evaluation was undertaken within the Improving Medicines use in People with Polypharmacy in Primary Care (IMPPP) randomised controlled trial conducted in the Bristol and West Midlands regions of England.

methodParticipants receiving the intervention were invited to complete a patient experience survey. Additionally, participants were purposively sampled and invited to participate in an interview and/or audio-recording of their medication review, to explore views and experiences.

resultsSurvey response rate was 72.5% (

conclusionParticipants were satisfied with their review, although this may be contingent on preparation and support. Findings highlight the importance of communication throughout, and how the clinician role and familiarity shape patient experience. A person-centred review approach has the potential to improve patient experience, satisfaction, and engagement.

Indexed as

Patient-Centered CarePatient SatisfactionPolypharmacyPrimary Health CareAdultAgedAged, 80 and overDecision Making, SharedEnglandFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient Participationclinical trialdecision making, sharedgeneral practicemedicines optimisationpolypharmacyqualitative evaluation

Identifiers

PMID40562447
PMCPMC13044218

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.