Willingness to Participate in Deprescribing Trials: A Survey of Older Adults in Two Countries.

IF 4.5
Sarah E Vordenberg, Noelia Dulo, Alexander Chaitoff, Kirsten Ingwersen, Kristie Rebecca Weir
{"title":"Willingness to Participate in Deprescribing Trials: A Survey of Older Adults in Two Countries.","authors":"Sarah E Vordenberg, Noelia Dulo, Alexander Chaitoff, Kirsten Ingwersen, Kristie Rebecca Weir","doi":"10.1111/jgs.70186","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study investigates the willingness of older adults to participate in a hypothetical deprescribing clinical trial.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted an online survey of adults aged 65+ years in Australia and the United States. Participants rated their willingness to enroll in a deprescribing trial, responding to the statement, \"Research is conducted to assess the safety and effectiveness of stopping medicines. Imagine your doctor made you aware of a research trial aiming to help people stop one or more of their medicines. To what extent would you be willing to enroll in the study?\" on a 6-point Likert scale with \"Not at all willing (1)\" and \"Extremely willing (6)\" as the scale anchors. Participants provided a brief free-text explanation. We dichotomized the outcome variable as willing (scores 4-6) and unwilling (scores 1-3) to enroll and conducted descriptive analyses, chi-square tests, and univariate and multivariate logistic regression models. Free-text responses were analyzed using content analysis, with descriptive statistics summarizing themes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 2334 participants in the quantitative analysis and 2237 participants in the content analysis. Most were willing (n = 1705, 73%) rather than unwilling (n = 629, 27%) to enroll in a deprescribing trial (p < 0.001, 95% CI 0.712, 0.748). Over one-half of participants (n = 1252, 56%) expressed the \"positive about deprescribing trials\" domain, with Australian participants more likely to do so (AU 666 [60%] vs. US 586 [52%], p < 0.001). Participants (n = 1047, 47%) frequently reported at least one theme of the \"concerns and hesitations\" domain (n = 669, 30%) with US participants more frequently expressing negative views (US 273 [24%] vs. AU 211 [19%], p = 0.002) and reporting the \"mistrust\" theme (US 74 [7%] vs. AU 35 [3%], p < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Older adults showed a willingness to engage in deprescribing trials, though concerns may affect enrollment. Clear communication of risks and benefits could support recruitment.</p>","PeriodicalId":94112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Geriatrics Society","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Geriatrics Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.70186","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: This study investigates the willingness of older adults to participate in a hypothetical deprescribing clinical trial.

Methods: We conducted an online survey of adults aged 65+ years in Australia and the United States. Participants rated their willingness to enroll in a deprescribing trial, responding to the statement, "Research is conducted to assess the safety and effectiveness of stopping medicines. Imagine your doctor made you aware of a research trial aiming to help people stop one or more of their medicines. To what extent would you be willing to enroll in the study?" on a 6-point Likert scale with "Not at all willing (1)" and "Extremely willing (6)" as the scale anchors. Participants provided a brief free-text explanation. We dichotomized the outcome variable as willing (scores 4-6) and unwilling (scores 1-3) to enroll and conducted descriptive analyses, chi-square tests, and univariate and multivariate logistic regression models. Free-text responses were analyzed using content analysis, with descriptive statistics summarizing themes.

Results: There were 2334 participants in the quantitative analysis and 2237 participants in the content analysis. Most were willing (n = 1705, 73%) rather than unwilling (n = 629, 27%) to enroll in a deprescribing trial (p < 0.001, 95% CI 0.712, 0.748). Over one-half of participants (n = 1252, 56%) expressed the "positive about deprescribing trials" domain, with Australian participants more likely to do so (AU 666 [60%] vs. US 586 [52%], p < 0.001). Participants (n = 1047, 47%) frequently reported at least one theme of the "concerns and hesitations" domain (n = 669, 30%) with US participants more frequently expressing negative views (US 273 [24%] vs. AU 211 [19%], p = 0.002) and reporting the "mistrust" theme (US 74 [7%] vs. AU 35 [3%], p < 0.001).

Conclusions: Older adults showed a willingness to engage in deprescribing trials, though concerns may affect enrollment. Clear communication of risks and benefits could support recruitment.

参与处方化试验的意愿:对两个国家老年人的调查。
背景:本研究调查老年人参与一个假设的处方性临床试验的意愿。方法:我们对澳大利亚和美国65岁以上的成年人进行了一项在线调查。参与者对“研究是为了评估停药的安全性和有效性而进行的”这一声明做出了回应,并对他们参加减处方试验的意愿进行了评分。想象一下,你的医生让你知道一项旨在帮助人们停用一种或多种药物的研究试验。你愿意在多大程度上参加这项研究?”这是一个6分制的李克特量表,以“完全不愿意(1)”和“非常愿意(6)”为定位点。与会者提供了简短的自由文本解释。我们将结果变量分为愿意(得分4-6)和不愿意(得分1-3),并进行描述性分析、卡方检验、单变量和多变量logistic回归模型。使用内容分析对自由文本回复进行分析,并使用描述性统计汇总主题。结果:定量分析参与者2334人,内容分析参与者2237人。大多数人愿意(n = 1705, 73%)而不是不愿意(n = 629, 27%)参加处方解除试验(p结论:老年人愿意参加处方解除试验,尽管顾虑可能会影响入组。对风险和利益的清晰沟通可以支持招聘。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍:
×
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