ArticleHealth SA = SA Gesondheid2026
Prescribers' experiences regarding deprescribing of polypharmacy at selected district hospitals in Gauteng province, South Africa.
Article in Health SA = SA Gesondheid, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Polypharmacy is a significant and persistent issue that hinders patient treatment plans and outcomes. It is associated with a wide range of harmful outcomes, including adverse drug interactions, increased morbidity and even mortality rates. The dire effects of polypharmacy have been associated with increased medication errors, hospitalisations, early readmissions and healthcare costs. Despite the extensive documentation and public awareness of these risks, little has been done to address the problem effectively. Deprescribing serves as a valuable strategy to mitigate and prevent the negative consequences associated with polypharmacy. Aim: The study sought to explore and describe prescriber's understanding and experiences regarding deprescribing of polypharmacy. Settings: The study was conducted at district hospitals in Gauteng province. Methods: A qualitative, descriptive, exploratory and contextual research approach and design was applied in the research. Non-probability purposive sampling techniques were used to select prescribers. Eight steps of data analysis were followed to analyse the data. Results: Three themes and nine sub-themes emerged from the study: (1) Negative effects of the impact of polypharmacy (the negative impact on the patients, the impact on prescribers and the impact on the organisation), (2) factors that hinder the deprescribing of polypharmacy (prescriber-related factors, patient-related factors, complexity of the prescribing environment and deficiencies in organisations) and (3) measures that can enhance deprescribing of polypharmacy (holistic systems for the deprescribing of polypharmacy and promotion of awareness and education). Conclusion: This study concluded that prescribers currently believe deprescribing is a complicated process, and few of them actually engage with it. Deprescribing is a safe and effective way to manage inappropriate polypharmacy. This study recommended that improved interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary approaches among health practitioners be introduced to encourage deprescribing, which will avert polypharmacy in the district hospitals. Contribution: The research findings provide insight, create awareness and encourage safe, rational and judicious prescribing practices among authorised prescribers in district hospitals in Gauteng province.
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.