ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2026
Designing Implementable Deprescribing Recommendations: A Qualitative Study of Healthcare Professional Perspectives.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundClinical guidelines routinely contain recommendations about initiating therapies, but less frequently address deprescribing (medication dose reduction or discontinuation). Routine integration of deprescribing recommendations into guidelines may enhance their reach, adoption, and impact.
objectiveTo elicit the perspectives of Australian healthcare professionals on the preferred content, language, and format of deprescribing recommendations for inclusion in clinical guidelines.
designA qualitative study using semi-structured interviews.
participantsTwenty-four medical doctors, pharmacists, and registered nurses were interviewed. APPROACH: Open-ended questions on what constitutes a complete, clear, and implementable deprescribing recommendation were posed. Participants were asked to identify features of example deprescribing recommendations that they found to be useful or not, justifying their reasoning. A thematic framework analysis was conducted using the Guideline Language and Format Instrument (GLAFI). KEY
resultsThree overarching themes were generated. Theme 1-a higher content and evidentiary threshold for deprescribing recommendations compared to prescribing recommendations-reflected participants' perceptions that deprescribing is more complex than medication initiation. Consequently, a higher standard for what constitutes an acceptable, feasible, and clinically useful deprescribing recommendation was described. Theme 2-balancing clarity and comprehensiveness-explored the tension between participants' desire for succinct and uncomplicated recommendations, and their want for detailed and comprehensive deprescribing instruction. Theme 3-optimizing the location of deprescribing recommendations-explored differing preferences on the location of deprescribing recommendations, with some participants favoring co-location with prescribing recommendations to promote proactive deprescribing, and others preferring a standalone section to enable inclusion of broader deprescribing principles and strategies, beyond medication-specific advice.
conclusionsHealthcare professionals considered the content, language, and format of deprescribing recommendations to be intrinsic to implementability. Deprescribing-specific factors, particularly the operational complexity of how to deprescribe and risk-framing considerations, extended beyond GLAFI's principles. These findings highlight opportunities to improve future deprescribing recommendations and to strengthen implementability frameworks for de-implementation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42573882What 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.