'Do I actually even need all these tablets?' A qualitative study exploring deprescribing decision-making for people in receipt of palliative care and their family members.

IF 3.6 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Anna Robinson-Barella, Charlotte Lucy Richardson, Zana Bayley, Andy Husband, Rona Bojke, Andy Bojke, Rachel Quibell, Lisa Baker, Emma McDougall, Catherine Exley, Barbara Hanratty, Joanna Elverson, Jesse Jansen, Adam Todd
{"title":"'Do I actually even need all these tablets?' A qualitative study exploring deprescribing decision-making for people in receipt of palliative care and their family members.","authors":"Anna Robinson-Barella, Charlotte Lucy Richardson, Zana Bayley, Andy Husband, Rona Bojke, Andy Bojke, Rachel Quibell, Lisa Baker, Emma McDougall, Catherine Exley, Barbara Hanratty, Joanna Elverson, Jesse Jansen, Adam Todd","doi":"10.1177/02692163251327900","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>For people in receipt of palliative care, where polypharmacy is common and medication burden is high, there remains limited knowledge around the decision-making processes that underpin deprescribing; for example, recent deprescribing studies have focused on wider issues of identifying polypharmacy in palliative care contexts. However, little is known about the specific challenges of, and preferences towards, decision-making to support the deprescribing for people in receipt of palliative care.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To explore decision-making processes that underpin deprescribing approaches, based on the experiences of people in receipt of palliative care, and their family member(s).</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>An explorative qualitative study involving in-person semi-structured interviews, analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.</p><p><strong>Setting/participants: </strong>Twenty-five semi-structured interviews were conducted with people in receipt of palliative care (<i>n</i> = 25), where 12 of these interviews were undertaken as dyads, with both the patient and a family member together. Interviews were undertaken across a range of settings, spanning: hospice outpatient day units (<i>n</i> = 11), hospice inpatient wards (<i>n</i> = 4), care home (<i>n</i> = 1) and patients' own homes (<i>n</i> = 9), and involved people with diverse diagnoses (including: cancer 52%, heart failure 20%, motor neurone disease 12%, pulmonary fibrosis 4% and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 4%).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Two overarching themes were developed - the first reflected the need to address patient understanding by 'laying the foundations of deprescribing decision-making'. The second theme, 'having a voice in deprescribing decision-making', reflected desires to (pro)-actively involve patients and their family member(s) within these processes.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There is a need to take a balanced, person-centred and shared approach to deprescribing decision-making for people receiving palliative care. Co-design strategies offer one approach to further explore this.</p>","PeriodicalId":19849,"journal":{"name":"Palliative Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"2692163251327900"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Palliative Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02692163251327900","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: For people in receipt of palliative care, where polypharmacy is common and medication burden is high, there remains limited knowledge around the decision-making processes that underpin deprescribing; for example, recent deprescribing studies have focused on wider issues of identifying polypharmacy in palliative care contexts. However, little is known about the specific challenges of, and preferences towards, decision-making to support the deprescribing for people in receipt of palliative care.

Aim: To explore decision-making processes that underpin deprescribing approaches, based on the experiences of people in receipt of palliative care, and their family member(s).

Design: An explorative qualitative study involving in-person semi-structured interviews, analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.

Setting/participants: Twenty-five semi-structured interviews were conducted with people in receipt of palliative care (n = 25), where 12 of these interviews were undertaken as dyads, with both the patient and a family member together. Interviews were undertaken across a range of settings, spanning: hospice outpatient day units (n = 11), hospice inpatient wards (n = 4), care home (n = 1) and patients' own homes (n = 9), and involved people with diverse diagnoses (including: cancer 52%, heart failure 20%, motor neurone disease 12%, pulmonary fibrosis 4% and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 4%).

Results: Two overarching themes were developed - the first reflected the need to address patient understanding by 'laying the foundations of deprescribing decision-making'. The second theme, 'having a voice in deprescribing decision-making', reflected desires to (pro)-actively involve patients and their family member(s) within these processes.

Conclusion: There is a need to take a balanced, person-centred and shared approach to deprescribing decision-making for people receiving palliative care. Co-design strategies offer one approach to further explore this.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Palliative Medicine
Palliative Medicine 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
9.10%
发文量
125
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Palliative Medicine is a highly ranked, peer reviewed scholarly journal dedicated to improving knowledge and clinical practice in the palliative care of patients with far advanced disease. This outstanding journal features editorials, original papers, review articles, case reports, correspondence and book reviews. Essential reading for all members of the palliative care team. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信