STOPP/START interventions to improve medicines management for people aged 65 years and over: a realist synthesis

J. Gangannagaripalli, I. Porter, A. Davey, Ignacio Ricci Cabello, J. Greenhalgh, R. Anderson, S. Briscoe, C. Hughes, R. Payne, E. Cockcroft, Jim Harris, C. Bramwell, J. Valderas
{"title":"STOPP/START interventions to improve medicines management for people aged 65 years and over: a realist synthesis","authors":"J. Gangannagaripalli, I. Porter, A. Davey, Ignacio Ricci Cabello, J. Greenhalgh, R. Anderson, S. Briscoe, C. Hughes, R. Payne, E. Cockcroft, Jim Harris, C. Bramwell, J. Valderas","doi":"10.3310/hsdr09230","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n Drug-related problems and potentially inappropriate prescribing impose a huge burden on patients and the health-care system. The most widely used tools for appropriate prescription in older adults in England and in other European countries are the Screening Tool of Older People’s Prescriptions (STOPP)/Screening Tool to Alert to the Right Treatment (START) tools. STOPP/START tools support medicines optimisation for older adults.\n \n \n \n To identify, test and refine the programme theories underlying how interventions based on the STOPP/START tools are intended to work, for whom, in what circumstances and why, as well as the resource use and cost requirements or impacts.\n \n \n \n A realist synthesis.\n \n \n \n Primary care, hospital care and nursing homes.\n \n \n \n Patients aged ≥ 65 years.\n \n \n \n Any intervention based on the use of the STOPP/START tools.\n \n \n \n Database and web-searching was carried out to retrieve relevant evidence to identify and test programme theories about how interventions based on the use of the STOPP/START tools work. A project reference group made up of health-care professionals, NHS decision-makers, older people, carers and members of the public was set up. In phase 1 we identified programme theories about STOPP/START interventions on how, for whom, in what contexts and why they are intended to work. We searched the peer-reviewed and grey literature to identify documents relevant to the research questions. We interviewed experts in the field in our reference group to gain input on our list of candidate context–mechanism–outcome configurations, to identify additional context–mechanism–outcome configurations and to identify additional literature and/or relevant concepts. In phase 2 we reviewed and synthesised relevant published and unpublished empirical evidence and tested the programme theories using evidence from a larger set of empirical studies.\n \n \n \n We developed a single logic model structured around three key mechanisms: (1) personalisation, (2) systematisation and (3) evidence implementation. Personalisation: STOPP/START-based interventions are based on shared decision-making, taking into account patient preferences, experiences and expectations (mechanisms), leading to increased patient awareness, adherence, satisfaction, empowerment and quality of life (outcomes). Systematisation: STOPP/START tools provide a standardised/systematic approach for medication reviews (mechanisms), leading to changes in professional and organisational culture and burden/costs (outcomes). Evidence implementation: delivery of STOPP/START-based interventions is based on the implementation of best evidence (mechanisms), reducing adverse outcomes through appropriate prescribing/deprescribing (outcomes). For theory testing, we identified 40 studies of the impact of STOPP/START-based interventions in hospital settings, nursing homes, primary care and community pharmacies. Most of the interventions used multiple mechanisms. We found support for the impact of the personalisation and evidence implementation mechanisms on selected outcome variables, but similar impact was achieved by interventions not relying on these mechanisms. We also observed that the impact of interventions was linked to the proximity of the selected outcomes to the intervention in the logic model, resulting in a clearer benefit for appropriateness of prescribing, adverse drug events and prescription costs.\n \n \n \n None of the available studies had been explicitly designed for evaluating underlying causal mechanisms, and qualitative information was sparse.\n \n \n \n No particular configuration of the interventions is associated with a greater likelihood of improved outcomes in given settings.\n \n \n \n This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018110795.\n \n \n \n This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 9, No. 23. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.\n","PeriodicalId":12880,"journal":{"name":"Health Services and Delivery Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Services and Delivery Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/hsdr09230","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Drug-related problems and potentially inappropriate prescribing impose a huge burden on patients and the health-care system. The most widely used tools for appropriate prescription in older adults in England and in other European countries are the Screening Tool of Older People’s Prescriptions (STOPP)/Screening Tool to Alert to the Right Treatment (START) tools. STOPP/START tools support medicines optimisation for older adults. To identify, test and refine the programme theories underlying how interventions based on the STOPP/START tools are intended to work, for whom, in what circumstances and why, as well as the resource use and cost requirements or impacts. A realist synthesis. Primary care, hospital care and nursing homes. Patients aged ≥ 65 years. Any intervention based on the use of the STOPP/START tools. Database and web-searching was carried out to retrieve relevant evidence to identify and test programme theories about how interventions based on the use of the STOPP/START tools work. A project reference group made up of health-care professionals, NHS decision-makers, older people, carers and members of the public was set up. In phase 1 we identified programme theories about STOPP/START interventions on how, for whom, in what contexts and why they are intended to work. We searched the peer-reviewed and grey literature to identify documents relevant to the research questions. We interviewed experts in the field in our reference group to gain input on our list of candidate context–mechanism–outcome configurations, to identify additional context–mechanism–outcome configurations and to identify additional literature and/or relevant concepts. In phase 2 we reviewed and synthesised relevant published and unpublished empirical evidence and tested the programme theories using evidence from a larger set of empirical studies. We developed a single logic model structured around three key mechanisms: (1) personalisation, (2) systematisation and (3) evidence implementation. Personalisation: STOPP/START-based interventions are based on shared decision-making, taking into account patient preferences, experiences and expectations (mechanisms), leading to increased patient awareness, adherence, satisfaction, empowerment and quality of life (outcomes). Systematisation: STOPP/START tools provide a standardised/systematic approach for medication reviews (mechanisms), leading to changes in professional and organisational culture and burden/costs (outcomes). Evidence implementation: delivery of STOPP/START-based interventions is based on the implementation of best evidence (mechanisms), reducing adverse outcomes through appropriate prescribing/deprescribing (outcomes). For theory testing, we identified 40 studies of the impact of STOPP/START-based interventions in hospital settings, nursing homes, primary care and community pharmacies. Most of the interventions used multiple mechanisms. We found support for the impact of the personalisation and evidence implementation mechanisms on selected outcome variables, but similar impact was achieved by interventions not relying on these mechanisms. We also observed that the impact of interventions was linked to the proximity of the selected outcomes to the intervention in the logic model, resulting in a clearer benefit for appropriateness of prescribing, adverse drug events and prescription costs. None of the available studies had been explicitly designed for evaluating underlying causal mechanisms, and qualitative information was sparse. No particular configuration of the interventions is associated with a greater likelihood of improved outcomes in given settings. This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018110795. This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 9, No. 23. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
STOPP/START干预措施改善65岁及以上人群的药物管理:现实主义综合
与药物有关的问题和可能不适当的处方给患者和医疗保健系统带来了巨大负担。在英格兰和其他欧洲国家,老年人最广泛使用的适当处方工具是老年人处方筛查工具(STOPP)/提醒正确治疗的筛查工具(START)。STOPP/START工具支持针对老年人的药物优化。确定、测试和完善基于STOPP/START工具的干预措施的基本方案理论,为谁、在什么情况下以及为什么进行干预,以及资源使用和成本要求或影响。现实主义的综合。初级保健、医院护理和疗养院。年龄≥ 65岁。基于STOPP/START工具使用的任何干预措施。进行了数据库和网络搜索,以检索相关证据,以确定和测试基于STOPP/START工具的干预措施如何发挥作用的方案理论。成立了一个由医疗保健专业人员、NHS决策者、老年人、护理人员和公众组成的项目参考小组。在第一阶段,我们确定了关于STOPP/START干预措施的方案理论,即如何、对谁、在什么背景下以及为什么要进行干预。我们搜索了同行评审和灰色文献,以确定与研究问题相关的文件。我们采访了我们参考小组中的该领域专家,以获得对我们的候选上下文-机制-结果配置列表的意见,确定额外的上下文-机制–结果配置,并确定额外的文献和/或相关概念。在第二阶段,我们回顾并综合了相关的已发表和未发表的经验证据,并使用一组更大的经验研究的证据来测试程序理论。我们开发了一个围绕三个关键机制构建的单一逻辑模型:(1)个性化,(2)系统化和(3)证据实施。个性化:基于STOPP/START的干预措施基于共同决策,考虑患者的偏好、经验和期望(机制),从而提高患者的意识、依从性、满意度、赋权和生活质量(结果)。系统化:STOPP/START工具为药物审查(机制)提供了标准化/系统化的方法,导致专业和组织文化以及负担/成本(结果)的变化。证据实施:基于STOPP/START的干预措施的实施基于最佳证据(机制)的实施,通过适当的处方/取消描述(结果)来减少不良结果。为了进行理论测试,我们确定了40项关于基于STOPP/START的干预措施在医院、疗养院、初级保健和社区药房中的影响的研究。大多数干预措施采用了多种机制。我们发现,个性化和证据实施机制对选定结果变量的影响得到了支持,但不依赖这些机制的干预措施也产生了类似的影响。我们还观察到,干预措施的影响与逻辑模型中所选结果与干预措施的接近程度有关,从而使处方的适当性、不良药物事件和处方成本得到更明确的益处。现有的研究都没有明确设计用于评估潜在的因果机制,定性信息也很少。在给定的环境中,干预措施的特定配置与改善结果的更大可能性无关。本研究注册为PROSPERO CRD42018110795。该项目由国家卫生研究所(NIHR)卫生服务和分娩研究计划资助,并将在《卫生服务和交付研究》上全文发表;第9卷,第23期。有关更多项目信息,请访问NIHR期刊图书馆网站。
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
1
审稿时长
53 weeks
×
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