Dataset Information

Patient-centered care interventions to reduce the inappropriate prescription and use of benzodiazepines and z-drugs: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT: Background:Benzodiazepines (BZDs) and z-drugs are effective drugs, but they are prescribed excessively worldwide. International guidelines recommend a maximum treatment duration of 4 weeks. Although these drugs are effective in the short-term, long-term BZD therapy is associated with considerable adverse effects, the development of tolerance and, finally, addiction. However, there are different interventions in terms of patient-centered care that aim to reduce the use of BZDs and z-drugs as well as assist health care professionals (HCPs) in preventing the inappropriate prescription of BZDs. Aim:The aim of this systematic review was to identify interventions that promote patient-centered treatments for inappropriate BZD and z-drug use and to analyze their effectiveness in reducing the inappropriate use of these drugs. Methods:To identify relevant studies, the PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Psyndex, and Cochrane Library databases were searched. Studies with controlled designs focusing on adult patients were included. Trials with chronically or mentally ill patients were excluded if long-term BZD and z-drug use was indicated. Study extraction was performed based on the Cochrane Form for study extraction. To assess the quality of the studies, we used a tool based on the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing the risk of bias in randomized trials. Results:We identified 7,068 studies and selected 20 for systematic review. Nine interventions focused on patients, nine on HCPs, and two on both patients and HCPs. Intervention types ranged from simple to multifaceted. Patient-centered interventions that provided patient information effectively increased the appropriate use of BZDs. The educational approaches for HCPs that aimed to achieve appropriate prescription reported inconsistent results. The methods that combined informing patients and HCPs led to a significant reduction in BZD use. Conclusions:This is the first review of studies focused on patient-centered approaches to reducing the inappropriate prescription and use of BZDs and z-drugs. The patient-centered dimension of patient information was responsible for a decrease in BZD and z-drug consumption. Further, in some studies, the patient-centered dimensions responsible for reducing the prescription and use of BZDs and z-drugs were the clinician's essential characteristics and clinician-patient communication.

SUBMITTER: Mokhar A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6190800 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Patient-centered care interventions to reduce the inappropriate prescription and use of benzodiazepines and z-drugs: a systematic review.

Mokhar Aliaksandra A Topp Janine J Härter Martin M Schulz Holger H Kuhn Silke S Verthein Uwe U Dirmaier Jörg J

PeerJ 20181008

<h4>Background</h4>Benzodiazepines (BZDs) and z-drugs are effective drugs, but they are prescribed excessively worldwide. International guidelines recommend a maximum treatment duration of 4 weeks. Although these drugs are effective in the short-term, long-term BZD therapy is associated with considerable adverse effects, the development of tolerance and, finally, addiction. However, there are different interventions in terms of patient-centered care that aim to reduce the use of BZDs and z-drugs ...[more]

PMID: 30345166

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThe long-term use of benzodiazepines (BZD) and z-drugs in older populations is associated with a variety of sociodemographic and health-related factors. Recent studies reported that long-term BZD and z-drugs use is associated with increased age, female sex, and severe negative psychological (e.g., depression) and somatic (e.g., chronic disease) factors. The current study explores the sociodemographic and health-related factors associated with long-term BZD and z-drugs use in the elderly.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional survey among randomly selected patients of one health insurance plan ("AOK North-West") with BZD and z-drugs prescriptions in the past 12 months. The sample was stratified by appropriate German prescription guidelines (yes vs. no) and age (50-65 vs. >65 years). To examine the association of selected sociodemographic and psychological variables (e.g., sex, employment status, quality of life, depression) with long-term use, a binary logistic regression analysis was conducted.ResultsIn total, data from 340 patients were analyzed. The mean age was 72.1 (SD = 14.5) years, and the most commonly used substances were zopiclon (38.1%), oxazepam (18.1%), and lorazepam (13.8%). The mean defined daily dose (DDD) was 0.73 (SD = 0.47). Insomnia was the main reason for prescribing BZD and z-drugs. The long-term use of BZD and z-drugs was significantly associated with unemployment (OR = 2.9, 95% CI [1.2-7.1]) and generally problematic medication use (OR = 0.5, 95% CI [0.2-1.0]).DiscussionUnemployment status and problematic medication use had a significant association with the patient-reported, long-term use of BZD and z-drugs. Divergent prescription patterns might suggest problematic patterns of BZD and z-drugs use. The causal connection between the identified factors and problematic BZD and z-drugs prescription is not discussed in this paper. Nevertheless, employment status and possible evidence of general problematic drug use may be a warning signal to the prescribers of BZD and z-drugs.

Project description:BackgroundStudies have shown that residents in nursing homes often are exposed to inappropriate medication. Particular concern has been raised about the consumption of psychoactive drugs, which are commonly prescribed for nursing home residents suffering from dementia. This review is an update of a Norwegian systematic review commissioned by the Norwegian Directorate of Health. The purpose of the review was to identify and summarise the effect of interventions aimed at reducing potentially inappropriate use or prescribing of drugs in nursing homes.MethodsWe searched for systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, ISI Web of Knowledge, DARE and HTA, with the last update in April 2010. Two of the authors independently screened titles and abstracts for inclusion or exclusion. Data on interventions, participants, comparison intervention, and outcomes were extracted from the included studies. Risk of bias and quality of evidence were assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Table and GRADE, respectively. Outcomes assessed were use of or prescribing of drugs (primary) and the health-related outcomes falls, physical limitation, hospitalisation and mortality (secondary).ResultsDue to heterogeneity in interventions and outcomes, we employed a narrative approach. Twenty randomised controlled trials were included from 1631 evaluated references. Ten studies tested different kinds of educational interventions while seven studies tested medication reviews by pharmacists. Only one study was found for each of the interventions geriatric care teams, early psychiatric intervening or activities for the residents combined with education of health care personnel. Several reviews were identified, but these either concerned elderly in general or did not satisfy all the requirements for systematic reviews.ConclusionsInterventions using educational outreach, on-site education given alone or as part of an intervention package and pharmacist medication review may under certain circumstances reduce inappropriate drug use, but the evidence is of low quality. Due to poor quality of the evidence, no conclusions may be drawn about the effect of the other three interventions on drug use, or of either intervention on health-related outcomes.

Project description:Patient misunderstanding of prescription drug label instructions is a common cause of unintentional misuse of medication and adverse health outcomes. Those with limited literacy and English proficiency are at greater risk.To test the effectiveness of a patient-centered drug label strategy, including a Universal Medication Schedule (UMS), to improve proper regimen use and adherence compared to a current standard.Two-arm, multi-site patient-randomized pragmatic trial.English- and Spanish-speaking patients from eight community health centers in northern Virginia who received prescriptions from a central-fill pharmacy and who were 1) ?30 years of age, 2) diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and/or hypertension, and 3) taking ?2 oral medications.A patient-centered label (PCL) strategy that incorporated evidence-based practices for format and content, including prioritized information, larger font size, and increased white space. Most notably, instructions were conveyed with the UMS, which uses standard intervals for expressing when to take medicine (morning, noon, evening, bedtime).Demonstrated proper use of a multi-drug regimen; medication adherence measured by self-report and pill count at 3 and 9 months.A total of 845 patients participated in the study (85.6 % cooperation rate). Patients receiving the PCL demonstrated slightly better proper use of their drug regimens at first exposure (76.9 % vs. 70.1 %, p?=?0.06) and at 9 months (85.9 % vs. 77.4 %, p?=?0.03). The effect of the PCL was significant for English-speaking patients (OR 2.21, 95 % CI 1.13-4.31) but not for Spanish speakers (OR 1.19, 95 % CI 0.63-2.24). Overall, the intervention did not improve medication adherence. However, significant benefits from the PCL were found among patients with limited literacy (OR 5.08, 95 % CI 1.15-22.37) and for those with medications to be taken ?2 times a day (OR 2.77, 95 % CI 1.17-6.53).A simple modification to pharmacy-generated labeling, with minimal investment required, can offer modest improvements to regimen use and adherence, mostly among patients with limited literacy and more complex regimens. Trial Registration (ClinicalTrials.gov): NCT00973180, NCT01200849.

Project description:BackgroundAn epidemic of health disorders can be triggered by a collective manifestation of inappropriate behaviors, usually systematically fueled by non-medical factors at the individual and/or societal levels. This study aimed to (1) landscape and assess the evidence on interventions that reduce inappropriate demand of medical resources (medicines or procedures) by triggering behavioral change among healthcare consumers, (2) map out intervention components that have been tried and tested, and (3) identify the "active ingredients" of behavior change interventions that were proven to be effective in containing epidemics of inappropriate use of medical resources.MethodsFor this systematic review, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and PsychINFO from the databases' inceptions to May 2019, without language restrictions, for behavioral intervention studies. Interventions had to be empirically evaluated with a control group that demonstrated whether the effects of the campaign extended beyond trends occurring in the absence of the intervention. Outcomes of interest were reductions in inappropriate or non-essential use of medicines and/or medical procedures for clinical conditions that do not require them. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full text for inclusion and extracted data on study characteristics (e.g., study design), intervention development, implementation strategies, and effect size. Data extraction sheets were based on the checklist from the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews.ResultsForty-three studies were included. The behavior change technique taxonomy v1 (BCTTv1), which contains 93 behavioral change techniques (BCTs), was used to characterize components of the interventions reported in the included studies. Of the 93 BCTs, 15 (16%) were identified within the descriptions of the selected studies targeting healthcare consumers. Interventions consisting of education messages, recommended behavior alternatives, and a supporting environment that incentivizes or encourages the adoption of a new behavior were more likely to be successful.ConclusionsThere is a continued tendency in research reporting that mainly stresses the effectiveness of interventions rather than the process of identifying and developing key components and the parameters within which they operate. Reporting "negative results" is likely as critical as reporting "active ingredients" and positive findings for implementation science. This review calls for a standardized approach to report intervention studies.Trial registrationPROSPERO registration number CRD42019139537.

Project description:BackgroundInappropriate antibiotic use contributes significantly to the global challenge of antimicrobial resistance. While government-initiated population-level interventions are fundamental in addressing this issue, their full potential remains to be explored. This systematic review aims to assess the effectiveness of such interventions in reducing inappropriate antibiotic use among antibiotic providers and users in healthcare and community settings.MethodsWe will conduct a systematic literature search across multiple databases and grey literature sources. We will include studies which evaluate the effectiveness of population-level interventions to reduce inappropriate antibiotic use in healthcare and community settings in both high-income and low- and middle-income countries. This includes government-initiated measures targeting antibiotic use through education, restriction, incentivization, coercion, training, persuasion, context modification, behavior modeling, or barrier reduction. Two reviewers will independently perform screening to select eligible studies, followed by data extraction. The outcomes of interest are various measures of antibiotic prescription and consumption, such as Defined Daily Dose (DDD) or number of prescriptions per year. We anticipate including a broad range of study designs and outcome measures. Therefore, we will narratively synthesize results using the categories of the population-level policy interventions of the Behavior Change Wheel Framework. We will organize outcome data by economic contexts, target populations, and implementation settings.DiscussionThis review will strengthen the evidence base for the use of population-level interventions to address inappropriate antibiotic use. Drawing lessons from global experiences, the findings will provide valuable guidance to health policymakers, public health authorities, and researchers on tailoring interventions to specific economic contexts, populations, and settings, thereby enhancing their capacity to drive substantial improvement in appropriate antibiotic use.

Project description:BackgroundElectronic clinical decision support systems (eCDSS), such as the 'Systematic Tool to Reduce Inappropriate Prescribing' Assistant (STRIPA), have become promising tools for assisting general practitioners (GPs) with conducting medication reviews in older adults. Little is known about how GPs perceive eCDSS-assisted recommendations for pharmacotherapy optimization. The aim of this study was to explore the implementation of a medication review intervention centered around STRIPA in the 'Optimising PharmacoTherapy In the multimorbid elderly in primary CAre' (OPTICA) trial.MethodsWe used an explanatory mixed methods design combining quantitative and qualitative data. First, quantitative data about the acceptance and implementation of eCDSS-generated recommendations from GPs (n = 21) and their patients (n = 160) in the OPTICA intervention group were collected. Then, semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with GPs from the OPTICA intervention group (n = 8), and interview data were analyzed through thematic analysis.ResultsIn quantitative findings, GPs reported averages of 13 min spent per patient preparing the eCDSS, 10 min performing medication reviews, and 5 min discussing prescribing recommendations with patients. On average, out of the mean generated 3.7 recommendations (SD=1.8). One recommendation to stop or start a medication was reported to be implemented per patient in the intervention group (SD=1.2). Overall, GPs found the STRIPA useful and acceptable. They particularly appreciated its ability to generate recommendations based on large amounts of patient information. During qualitative interviews, GPs reported the main reasons for limited implementation of STRIPA were related to problems with data sourcing (e.g., incomplete data imports), preparation of the eCDSS (e.g., time expenditure for updating and adapting information), its functionality (e.g., technical problems downloading PDF recommendation reports), and appropriateness of recommendations.ConclusionsQualitative findings help explain the relatively low implementation of recommendations demonstrated by quantitative findings, but also show GPs' overall acceptance of STRIPA. Our results provide crucial insights for adapting STRIPA to make it more suitable for regular use in future primary care settings (e.g., necessity to improve data imports).Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT03724539, date of first registration: 29/10/2018.

Project description:BackgroundClinicians frequently prescribe antibiotics inappropriately for acute respiratory infections (ARIs). Our objective was to test information technology-enabled behavioral interventions to reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing for ARIs in a randomized controlled pilot test trial.MethodsPrimary care clinicians were randomized in a 2 × 2 × 2 factorial experiment with 3 interventions: 1) Accountable Justifications; 2) Suggested Alternatives; and 3) Peer Comparison. Beforehand, participants completed an educational module. Measures included: rates of antibiotic prescribing for: non-antibiotic-appropriate ARI diagnoses, acute sinusitis/pharyngitis, all other diagnoses/symptoms of respiratory infection, and all three ARI categories combined.ResultsWe examined 3,276 visits in the pre-intervention year and 3,099 in the intervention year. The antibiotic prescribing rate fell for non-antibiotic-appropriate ARIs (24.7 % in the pre-intervention year to 5.2 % in the intervention year); sinusitis/pharyngitis (50.3 to 44.7 %); all other diagnoses/symptoms of respiratory infection (40.2 to 25.3 %); and all categories combined (38.7 to 24.2 %; all p < 0.001). There were no significant relationships between any intervention and antibiotic prescribing for non-antibiotic-appropriate ARI diagnoses or sinusitis/pharyngitis. Suggested Alternatives was associated with reduced antibiotic prescribing for other diagnoses or symptoms of respiratory infection (odds ratio [OR], 0.62; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 0.44-0.89) and for all ARI categories combined (OR, 0.72; 95 % CI, 0.54-0.96). Peer Comparison was associated with reduced prescribing for all ARI categories combined (OR, 0.73; 95 % CI, 0.53-0.995).ConclusionsWe observed large reductions in antibiotic prescribing regardless of whether or not study participants received an intervention, suggesting an overriding Hawthorne effect or possibly clinician-to-clinician contamination. Low baseline inappropriate prescribing may have led to floor effects.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01454960 .

Project description:Objectives To identify trends in concurrent use of a benzodiazepine and an opioid and to identify the impact of these trends on admissions to hospital and emergency room visits for opioid overdose.Design Retrospective analysis of claims data, 2001-13.Setting Administrative health claims database.Participants 315 428 privately insured people aged 18-64 who were continuously enrolled in a health plan with medical and pharmacy benefits during the study period and who also filled at least one prescription for an opioid.Interventions Concurrent benzodiazepine/opioid use, defined as an overlap of at least one day in the time periods covered by prescriptions for each drug. Main outcome measures Annual percentage of opioid users with concurrent benzodiazepine use; annual incidence of visits to emergency room and inpatient admissions for opioid overdose.Results 9% of opioid users also used a benzodiazepine in 2001, increasing to 17% in 2013 (80% relative increase). This increase was driven mainly by increases among intermittent, as opposed to chronic, opioid users. Compared with opioid users who did not use benzodiazepines, concurrent use of both drugs was associated with an increased risk of an emergency room visit or inpatient admission for opioid overdose (adjusted odds ratio 2.14, 95% confidence interval 2.05 to 2.24; P<0.001) among all opioid users. The adjusted odds ratio for an emergency room visit or inpatient admission for opioid overdose was 1.42 (1.33 to 1.51; P<0.001) for intermittent opioid users and 1.81 (1.67 to 1.96; P<0.001) chronic opioid users. If this association is causal, elimination of concurrent benzodiazepine/opioid use could reduce the risk of emergency room visits related to opioid use and inpatient admissions for opioid overdose by an estimated 15% (95% confidence interval 14 to 16).Conclusions From 2001 to 2013, concurrent benzodiazepine/opioid use sharply increased in a large sample of privately insured patients in the US and significantly contributed to the overall population risk of opioid overdose.

Project description:Benzodiazepines are frequently prescribed to treat anxiety and insomnia, but long-term use has been associated with the development of dependence, tolerance, and cognitive decline, especially among older adults. This study aimed to investigate the pattern of consumption and factors associated with inappropriate prescribing of benzodiazepines in primary health care. This is a cross-sectional analytical study, using dispensing records of diazepam, clonazepam, and nitrazepam from public pharmacies in a Brazilian municipality between 2018 and 2022. Metrics for benzodiazepine consumption were DDD (Defined Daily Dose) and DDD/1000PD (per 1000 population per day). Long-term/prolonged benzodiazepine use was defined as consuming at least 90 DDD and at least 2 dispensations per year. To ascertain associations between long-term use and predictor variables, a multivariate logistic regression model was utilized. A total of 40402 participants were included, with an average age of 55 years (SD = 0.30), 38.5% were older aged. Diazepam and nitrazepam exceeded the daily dose recommended. There was a reduction in diazepam consumption during the study period, as calculated by DDD/1.000PD, while the consumption of other benzodiazepines remained stable. However, a significant increase in diazepam consumption is noted when considering the last decade. Prolonged use was observed in 29.1% of participants, with a significant prevalence among the older people (34.8% of them were long-term users) and advancing age was identified as a risk factor for long-term use. Higher PDDs were also associated with long-term use and aging. Participants who used different benzodiazepines during the period had a higher risk of prolonged use. These results provide insights into the prevalence of problematic utilization of benzodiazepines in primary health care. Authorities and health care providers must take steps to encourage gradual cessation of prolonged benzodiazepine prescriptions and the embrace of suitable strategies for addressing anxiety and insomnia within primary health care settings.

Project description:ObjectiveSubstance use disorder treatment professionals are paying increased attention to implementing patient-centered care. Understanding environmental and organizational factors associated with clinicians' efforts to engage patients in clinical decision-making processes is essential for bringing patient-centered care to the addictions field. This study examined factors associated with patient-centered care practices in substance use disorder treatment.MethodsData were from the 2017 National Drug Abuse Treatment System Survey, a nationally representative survey of U.S substance use disorder treatment clinics (outpatient nonopioid treatment programs, outpatient opioid treatment programs, inpatient clinics, and residential clinics). Multivariate regression analyses examined whether clinics invited patients into clinical decision-making processes and whether clinical supervisors supported and believed in patient-centered care practices.ResultsOf the 657 substance use disorder clinics included in the analysis, about 23% invited patients to participate in clinical decision-making processes. Clinicians were more likely to engage patients in decision-making processes when working in residential clinics (compared with outpatient nonopioid treatment programs) or in clinics serving a smaller proportion of patients with alcohol or opioid use disorder. Clinical supervisors were more likely to value patient-centered care practices if the organization's administrative director perceived less regional competition or relied on professional information sources to understand developments in the substance use disorder treatment field. Clinicians' tendency to engage patients in decision-making processes was positively associated with clinical supervisors' emphasis on patient-centered care.ConclusionsA minority of U.S. substance use disorder clinics invited patients into clinical decision-making processes. Therefore, patient-centered care may be unavailable to certain vulnerable patient groups.

Dataset Information

Patient-centered care interventions to reduce the inappropriate prescription and use of benzodiazepines and z-drugs: a systematic review.

Publications

Patient-centered care interventions to reduce the inappropriate prescription and use of benzodiazepines and z-drugs: a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets