Effectiveness of interventions designed to increase safe medicine disposal: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials.

IF 6.3 4区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Amy Soo-Bin Ma, Andrew J McLachlan, Christina Abdel Shaheed, Danijela Gnjidic, Jonathan Penm, Toni Riley, Stephanie Mathieson
{"title":"Effectiveness of interventions designed to increase safe medicine disposal: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials.","authors":"Amy Soo-Bin Ma, Andrew J McLachlan, Christina Abdel Shaheed, Danijela Gnjidic, Jonathan Penm, Toni Riley, Stephanie Mathieson","doi":"10.1186/s13643-025-02820-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Drug-related harm is a major cause of mortality, poisonings, hospitalisations and misuse. Reducing the availability of unused medicines is a component of ensuring medication safety. However, the current literature on how to increase the implementation of medicine disposal strategies needs to be clarified. This systematic review evaluated the effectiveness of strategies designed to promote medicine disposal.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Electronic databases and clinical trial registries were searched from inception to 16th February 2024 without restriction for randomised trials of any interventions aiming to increase medicine disposal compared to any control. Medicine disposal could be done using any method as reported by eligible studies. The primary outcome was the change in the proportion of participants who disposed of unused medicines. Secondary outcomes were changes in patient (e.g. knowledge of disposal strategies), population (e.g. poisonings), environmental (e.g. preventing going to landfill) and economic (e.g. cost-effectiveness) outcomes. The original Cochrane tool was used to assess the risk of bias. Random-effects meta-analysis was conducted on the primary outcome, and a narrative synthesis was performed on secondary outcomes due to heterogeneity. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to assess the quality of evidence. PROSPERO registration: CRD42023491797.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eighteen randomised trials were included (plus five ongoing, registered trials). All studies were conducted in North America, published from 2016 to 2023, targeted opioid analgesic disposal and included 5347 participants. Interventional strategies of providing disposal kits (risk ratio [RR] 1.42, 95% confidence Interval [CI] 1.13 to 1.79, moderate evidence), education alone (RR 1.47, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.09, low evidence), education plus reminder prompts (RR 2.51, 95% CI 1.30 to 4.83, moderate evidence) and education plus disposal kits (RR 2.00, 95% CI 1.03 to 3.87, moderate evidence) increased disposal compared to routine practice. Secondary outcomes were infrequently reported, including no studies reporting population-level (poisonings, hospitalisations) and environmental outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There is moderate quality of evidence supporting interventions of disposal kits, disposal kit and education and education with text reminders to increase the disposal of unused medicines compared to routine practice. The conclusions of this review should be interpreted following consideration on the quality of evidence and the number of trials conducted.</p>","PeriodicalId":22162,"journal":{"name":"Systematic Reviews","volume":"14 1","pages":"119"},"PeriodicalIF":6.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12125881/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Systematic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-025-02820-4","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Drug-related harm is a major cause of mortality, poisonings, hospitalisations and misuse. Reducing the availability of unused medicines is a component of ensuring medication safety. However, the current literature on how to increase the implementation of medicine disposal strategies needs to be clarified. This systematic review evaluated the effectiveness of strategies designed to promote medicine disposal.

Methods: Electronic databases and clinical trial registries were searched from inception to 16th February 2024 without restriction for randomised trials of any interventions aiming to increase medicine disposal compared to any control. Medicine disposal could be done using any method as reported by eligible studies. The primary outcome was the change in the proportion of participants who disposed of unused medicines. Secondary outcomes were changes in patient (e.g. knowledge of disposal strategies), population (e.g. poisonings), environmental (e.g. preventing going to landfill) and economic (e.g. cost-effectiveness) outcomes. The original Cochrane tool was used to assess the risk of bias. Random-effects meta-analysis was conducted on the primary outcome, and a narrative synthesis was performed on secondary outcomes due to heterogeneity. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to assess the quality of evidence. PROSPERO registration: CRD42023491797.

Results: Eighteen randomised trials were included (plus five ongoing, registered trials). All studies were conducted in North America, published from 2016 to 2023, targeted opioid analgesic disposal and included 5347 participants. Interventional strategies of providing disposal kits (risk ratio [RR] 1.42, 95% confidence Interval [CI] 1.13 to 1.79, moderate evidence), education alone (RR 1.47, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.09, low evidence), education plus reminder prompts (RR 2.51, 95% CI 1.30 to 4.83, moderate evidence) and education plus disposal kits (RR 2.00, 95% CI 1.03 to 3.87, moderate evidence) increased disposal compared to routine practice. Secondary outcomes were infrequently reported, including no studies reporting population-level (poisonings, hospitalisations) and environmental outcomes.

Conclusions: There is moderate quality of evidence supporting interventions of disposal kits, disposal kit and education and education with text reminders to increase the disposal of unused medicines compared to routine practice. The conclusions of this review should be interpreted following consideration on the quality of evidence and the number of trials conducted.

旨在提高药物安全处置的干预措施的有效性:随机试验的系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景:药物相关伤害是导致死亡、中毒、住院和滥用的主要原因。减少未使用药物的可得性是确保用药安全的一个组成部分。然而,目前文献中关于如何增加药品处置策略的实施需要澄清。本系统综述评估了旨在促进药物处置的策略的有效性。方法:从开始到2024年2月16日,检索电子数据库和临床试验注册库,不限制任何旨在增加药物处置的干预措施的随机试验。药物处置可以使用符合条件的研究报告的任何方法进行。主要结果是处理未使用药物的参与者比例的变化。次要结果是患者(如处置策略的知识)、人口(如中毒)、环境(如防止填埋)和经济(如成本效益)结果的变化。使用原始Cochrane工具评估偏倚风险。对主要结局进行随机效应荟萃分析,由于异质性,对次要结局进行叙事综合。建议分级评估、发展和评价(GRADE)用于评估证据质量。普洛斯彼罗注册号:CRD42023491797。结果:纳入了18项随机试验(加上5项正在进行的注册试验)。所有研究均在北美进行,发表于2016年至2023年,目标是阿片类镇痛药的处理,共有5347名参与者。提供处理包的干预策略(风险比[RR] 1.42, 95%可信区间[CI] 1.13 ~ 1.79,中等证据)、单独教育(RR 1.47, 95% CI 1.03 ~ 2.09,低证据)、教育加提醒提示(RR 2.51, 95% CI 1.30 ~ 4.83,中等证据)和教育加处理包(RR 2.00, 95% CI 1.03 ~ 3.87,中等证据)与常规做法相比增加了处置。次要结果很少报告,包括没有报告人群水平(中毒、住院)和环境结果的研究。结论:与常规做法相比,有中等质量的证据支持使用处置包、处置包和文字提醒教育的干预措施,以增加未用药物的处置。本综述的结论应在考虑证据质量和进行的试验数量后进行解释。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Systematic Reviews
Systematic Reviews Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
8.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
241
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊介绍: Systematic Reviews encompasses all aspects of the design, conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. The journal publishes high quality systematic review products including systematic review protocols, systematic reviews related to a very broad definition of health, rapid reviews, updates of already completed systematic reviews, and methods research related to the science of systematic reviews, such as decision modelling. At this time Systematic Reviews does not accept reviews of in vitro studies. The journal also aims to ensure that the results of all well-conducted systematic reviews are published, regardless of their outcome.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信