Defining pediatric polypharmacy: A scoping review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objectives
Lack of consensus regarding the semantics and definitions of pediatric polypharmacy challenges researchers and clinicians alike. We conducted a scoping review to describe definitions and terminology of pediatric polypharmacy.Methods
Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane CENTRAL, and the Web of Science Core Collection databases were searched for English language articles with the concepts of "polypharmacy" and "children". Data were extracted about study characteristics, polypharmacy terms and definitions from qualifying studies, and were synthesized by disease conditions.Results
Out of 4,398 titles, we included 363 studies: 324 (89%) provided numeric definitions, 131 (36%) specified duration of polypharmacy, and 162 (45%) explicitly defined it. Over 81% (n = 295) of the studies defined polypharmacy as two or more medications or therapeutic classes. The most common comprehensive definitions of pediatric polypharmacy included: two or more concurrent medications for ?1 day (n = 41), two or more concurrent medications for ?31 days (n = 15), and two or more sequential medications over one year (n = 12). Commonly used terms included polypharmacy, polytherapy, combination pharmacotherapy, average number, and concomitant medications. The term polypharmacy was more common in psychiatry literature while epilepsy literature favored the term polytherapy.Conclusions
Two or more concurrent medications, without duration, for ?1 day, ?31 days, or sequentially for one year were the most common definitions of pediatric polypharmacy. We recommend that pediatric polypharmacy studies specify the number of medications or therapeutic classes, if they are concurrent or sequential, and the duration of medications. We propose defining pediatric polypharmacy as "the prescription or consumption of two or more distinct medications for at least one day". The term "polypharmacy" should be included among key words and definitions in manuscripts.
SUBMITTER: Bakaki PM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6264483 | biostudies-literature | 2018
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Introduction:Various methods have been used to interpret the reports of pediatric polypharmacy across the literature. This is the first scoping review that explores outcome measures in pediatric polypharmacy research. Objectives:The aim of our study was to describe outcome measures assessed in pediatric polypharmacy research. Methods:A search of electronic databases was conducted in July 2017, including Ovid Medline, PubMed, Elsevier Embase, Wiley Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), EBSCO CINAHL, Ovid PsyclNFO, Web of Science Core Collection, ProQuest Dissertations and Thesis A&I. Data were extracted about study characteristics and outcome measures, and also synthesized by harms or benefits mentioned. Results:The search strategy initially identified 8169 titles and screened 4398 using the inclusion criteria after de-duplicating. After the primary screening, a total of 363 studies were extracted for the data analysis. Polypharmacy (prevalence) was identified as an outcome in 31.4% of the studies, prognosis-related outcomes in 25.6%, and adverse drug reactions in 16.5%. A total of 265 articles (73.0%) mentioned harms, including adverse drug reactions (26.4%), side effects (24.2%), and drug-drug interactions (20.9%). A total of 83 studies (22.9%) mentioned any benefit, 48.2% of which identified combination for efficacy, 24.1% combination for treatment of complex diseases, and 19.3% combination for treatment augmentation. Thirty-eight studies reported adverse drug reaction as an outcome, where polypharmacy was a predictor, with various designs. Conclusions:Most studies of pediatric polypharmacy evaluate prevalence, prognosis, or adverse drug reaction-related out-comes, and underscore harms related to polypharmacy. Clinicians should carefully weigh benefits and harms when introducing medications to treatment regimens.
| S-EPMC7123381 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo examine the range of prevalence of pediatric polypharmacy in literature through a scoping review, focusing on factors that contribute to its heterogeneity in order to improve the design and reporting of quality improvement, pharmacovigilance, and research studies.MethodsWe searched Ovid Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Ovid PsycINFO, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Web of Science Core Collection databases for studies with concepts of children and polypharmacy, along with a hand search of the bibliographies of six reviews and 30 included studies. We extracted information regarding study design, disease conditions, and prevalence of polypharmacy.ResultsTwo hundred eighty-four studies reported prevalence of polypharmacy. They were more likely to be conducted in North America (37.7%), published after 2010 (44.4%), cross-sectional (67.3%), in outpatient settings (59.5%). Prevalence ranged from 0.9% to 98.4%, median 39.7% (interquartile range [IQR] 22.0%-54.0%). Studies from Asia reported the highest median prevalence of 45.4% (IQR 27.3%-61.0%) while studies from North America reported the lowest median prevalence of 30.4% (IQR 14.7%-50.2%). Prevalence decreased over time: median 45.6% before 2001, 38.1% during 2001 to 2010, and 34% during 2011 to 2017. Studies involving children under 12 years had a higher median prevalence (46.9%) than adolescent studies (33.7%). Inpatient setting studies had a higher median prevalence (50.3%) than studies in outpatient settings (38.8%). Community level samples, higher number and duration of medications defining polypharmacy, and psychotropic medications were associated with lower prevalence.ConclusionsThe prevalence of pediatric polypharmacy is high and variable. Studies reporting pediatric polypharmacy should account for context, design, polypharmacy definition, and medications evaluated.
| S-EPMC6461742 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Ageing--along with its associated physiological and pathological changes--places individuals at a higher risk of multimorbidity and treatment-related complications. Today, polypharmacy, a common and important problem related to drug use, occurs subsequent to this multimorbidity in the elderly in all populations. In recent decades, several scientific investigations have studied polypharmacy and its correlates, using different approaches and definitions, and their results have been inconclusive. Differences in definitions and approaches in these studies form a barrier against reaching a conclusion regarding the risk factors and consequences of polypharmacy. It is therefore imperative to establish an appropriate definition of polypharmacy.A systematic review will be conducted using PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, EMBASE, PsycINFO and AgeLine bibliographic databases, as well as the grey literature on polypharmacy in older adults to answer these two questions: What definitions in the literature are being used for polypharmacy in older people?, and Which definitions are more comprehensive and applicable? 2 independent reviewers will conduct the primary screening of the articles and data extraction, and eligible sources will be selected after discussing non-conformities. All extracted data from selected articles will be categorised based on the type of study participants, study design and setting, the methodological quality of primary studies and any other potential source of heterogeneity, and results will be summarised in a table, which will contain the levels of evidence and methodological quality of the included studies. The most comprehensive definition of polypharmacy will be selected from the final list of definitions through an international expert webinar.This research is exempt from ethics approval because the work is carried out on published documents. We will disseminate this protocol in a related peer-reviewed journal.
| S-EPMC4809106 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundPolypharmacy can be either beneficial or harmful to children. We conducted a scoping review to examine the concept of pediatric polypharmacy: its definition, prevalence, extent and gaps in research. In this manuscript, we report our transdisciplinary scoping review methodology.MethodsAfter establishing a transdisciplinary team, we iteratively developed standard operating procedures for the study's search strategy, inclusion/exclusion criteria, screening, and data extraction. We searched eight bibliographic databases, screened abstracts and full text articles, and extracted data from included studies using standardized forms. We held regular team meetings and performed ongoing internal validity measurements to maintain consistent and quality outputs.ResultsWith the aid of EPPI Reviewer collaborative software, our transdisciplinary team of nine members performed dual reviews of 363 included studies after dual screening of 4398 abstracts and 1082 full text articles. We achieved overall agreement of 85% and a kappa coefficient of 0.71 (95% CI 0.68-0.74) while screening full text articles. The screening and review processes required about seven hours per extracted study. The two pharmacists, an epidemiologist, a neurologist, and a librarian on the review team provided internal consultation in these key disciplines. A stakeholder group of 10 members with expertise in evidence synthesis, research implementation, pediatrics, mental health, epilepsy, pharmacoepidemiology, and pharmaceutical outcomes were periodically consulted to further characterize pediatric polypharmacy.ConclusionsA transdisciplinary approach to scoping reviews, including internal and external consultation, should be considered when addressing complex cross-disciplinary questions.
| S-EPMC6172739 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionPrecision health is a nascent field of research that would benefit from clearer operationalisation and distinction from adjacent fields like precision medicine. This clarification is necessary to enable precision health science to tackle some of the most complex and significant health problems that are faced globally. There is a pressing need to examine the progress in human precision health research in the past 10 years and analyse this data to first, find similarities and determine discordances in how precision health is operationalised in the literature and second, identify gaps and future directions for precision health research.Methods and analysisTo define precision health and map research in this field, a scoping review will be undertaken and reported according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses - Scoping Review Extension guidelines. Systematic searches of scientific databases (Medline, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and PsycINFO) and grey literature sources (Google Scholar, Google Patents) identified 8053 potentially eligible articles published from 1 January 2010 to 30 June 2020. Following removal of duplicates, a total of 3190 articles were imported for screening. Article data will be extracted using a customised extraction template on Covidence and analysed descriptively using narrative synthesis.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required. Findings will be disseminated through professional networks, conference presentations and publication in a scientific journal.
| S-EPMC7888329 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionPolypharmacy is a common concern, especially in the older population. In some countries more that 50% of all individuals over 60 receive five or more drugs, most often due to multimorbidity and increased longevity. However, polypharmacy is associated with multiple adverse events, and more medication may not always be the answer. The terms "appropriate" and "inappropriate" are often used to distinguish between "much" and "too much" medications in relation to polypharmacy in research and practice, but no explicit definition exists to describe what these terms encompass. The aim of this review is to unfold the different understandings of and perspectives on (in)appropriate polypharmacy and suggest a framework for further research and practice.MethodA scoping review was conducted using the framework of Arksey and O'Malley and Levac et al. Pubmed, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane database, Scopus and Web of Science were searched for references in English, Danish, Norwegian and Swedish using the search string "Polypharmacy" AND "Appropriate" OR "Inappropriate". Data was extracted on author information, aims and objectives, methodology, study population and setting, country of origin, main findings and implications, and all text including the words "appropriate," "inappropriate," and "polypharmacy." Qualitative meaning condensation analysis was used and data charted using descriptive and thematic analysis.ResultsOf 3982 references, a total of 92 references were included in the review. Most references were from 2016-2021, from fields related to medicine or pharmacy, and occurred within primary and secondary healthcare settings. Based on the qualitative analysis, a framework were assembled consisting of Context, three domains (Standardization, Practices and Values & Concerns) and Patient Perspective.ConclusionInappropriate polypharmacy is a concept loaded by its heterogeneity and the usefulness of a single definition is doubtful. Instead, the framework suggested in this article representing different dimensions of inappropriate polypharmacy may serve as an initial strategy for focusing research and practice on polypharmacy in old age.
| S-EPMC9899389 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesIn recent years, discussions on the importance and scope of therapeutic value of new medicines have intensified, stimulated by the increase of prices and number of medicines entering the market. This study aims to perform a scoping review identifying factors contributing to the definition of the therapeutic value of medicines.DesignScoping review.Data sourcesWe searched the MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Business Source Premier, EconLit, Regional Business News, Cochrane, Web of Science, Scope and Pool databases through December 2020 in English, German, French, Italian and Spanish.Eligibility criteriaStudies that included determinants for the definition of therapeutic value of medicines were included.Data extraction and synthesisData were extracted using the mentioned data sources. Two reviewers independently screened and analysed the articles. Data were analysed from April 2021 to May 2022.ResultsOf the 1883 studies screened, 51 were selected and the identified factors contributing to the definition of therapeutic value of medicines were classified in three categories: patient perspective, public health perspective and socioeconomic perspective. More than three-quarters of the included studies were published after 2014, with the majority of the studies focusing on either cancer disorders (14 of 51, 27.5%) or rare diseases (11 of 51, 21.6%). Frequently mentioned determinants for value were quality of life, therapeutic alternatives and side effects (all patient perspective), prevalence/incidence and clinical endpoints (all public health perspective), and costs (socioeconomic perspective).ConclusionsMultiple determinants have been developed to define the therapeutic value of medicines, most of them focusing on cancer disorders and rare diseases. Considering the relevance of value of medicines to guide patients and physicians in decision-making as well as policymakers in resource allocation decisions, a development of evidence-based factors for the definition of therapeutic value of medicines is needed across all therapeutic areas.
| S-EPMC10748878 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Polypharmacy is a key challenge in healthcare especially in older and multimorbid patients. The use of multiple medications increases the potential for drug interactions and for prescription of potentially inappropriate medications. eHealth solutions are increasingly recommended in healthcare, with big data analysis techniques as a major component. In the following we use the term analysis of big data as referring to the computational analysis of large data sets to find patterns, trends, and associations in large data sets collected from a wide range of sources in contrast to using classical statistics programs. It is hypothesized that big data analysis is able to reveal patterns in patient data that would not be identifiable using conventional methods of data analysis. The aim of this review was to evaluate whether there are existing big data analysis techniques that can help to identify patients consuming multiple drugs and to assist in the reduction of polypharmacy in patients. METHODS:A computerized search was conducted in February 2019 and updated in May 2020, using the PubMed, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases. The search strategy was defined by the principles of a systematic search, using the PICO scheme. All studies evaluating big data analytics about patients consuming multiple drugs were considered. Two researchers assessed all search results independently to identify eligible studies. The data was then extracted into standardized tables. RESULTS:A total of 327 studies were identified through the database search. After title and abstract screening, 302 items were removed. Only three studies were identified as addressing big data analysis techniques in patients with polypharmacy. One study extracted antipsychotic polypharmacy data, the second introduced a decision support system to evaluate side-effects in patients with polypharmacy and the third evaluated a decision support system to identify polypharmacy-related problems in individuals. CONCLUSIONS:There are few studies to date which have used big data analysis techniques for identification and management of polypharmacy. There may be a need to further explore interdisciplinary collaboration between computer scientists and healthcare professionals, to develop and evaluate big data analysis techniques that can be implemented to manage polypharmacy.
| S-EPMC7472702 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Polypharmacy paves the way for non-adherence, adverse drug reactions, negative health outcomes, increased use of healthcare services and rising costs. Since it is most prevalent in the older adults, there is an urgent need for introducing effective strategies to prevent and manage the problem in this age group. Purpose: To perform a scoping review critically analysing the available literature referring to the issue of polypharmacy management in the older adults and provide narrative summary. Data sources: Articles published between January 2010-March 2018 indexed in CINHAL, EMBASE and PubMed addressing polypharmacy management in the older adults. Results: Our search identified 49 papers. Among the identified interventions, the most often recommended ones involved various types of drug reviews based on either implicit or explicit criteria. Implicit criteria-based approaches are used infrequently due to their subjectivity, and limited implementability. Most of the publications advocate the use of explicit criteria, such as e.g. STOPP/START, Beers and Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI). However, their applicability is also limited due to long lists of potentially inappropriate medications covered. To overcome this obstacle, such instruments are often embedded in computerised clinical decision support systems. Conclusion: Multiple approaches towards polypharmacy management are advised in current literature. They vary in terms of their complexity, applicability and usability, and no "gold standard" is identifiable. For practical reasons, explicit criteria-based drug reviews seem to be advisable. Having in mind that in general, polypharmacy management in the older adults is underused, both individual stakeholders, as well as policymakers should strengthen their efforts to promote these activities more strongly.
| S-EPMC8661120 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundData harmonisation is an important intervention to strengthen health systems functioning. It has the potential to enhance the production, accessibility and utilisation of routine health information for clinical and service management decision-making. It is important to understand the range of definitions and concepts of data harmonisation, as well as how its various social and technical components and processes are thought to lead to better health management decision-making. However, there is lack of agreement in the literature, and in practice, on definitions and conceptualisations of data harmonisation, making it difficult for health system decision-makers and researchers to design, implement, evaluate and compare data harmonisation interventions. This scoping review aims to synthesise (1) definitions and conceptualisations of data harmonisation as well as (2) explanations in the literature of the causal relationships between data harmonisation and health management decision-making.MethodsThis review follows recommended methodological stages for scoping studies. We will identify relevant studies (peer-reviewed and grey literature) from 2000 onwards, in English only, and with no methodological restriction, in various electronic databases, such as CINAHL, MEDLINE via PubMed and Global Health. Two reviewers will independently screen records for potential inclusion for the abstract and full-text screening stages. One reviewer will do the data extraction, analysis and synthesis, with built-in reliability checks from the rest of the team. We will use a combination of sampling techniques, including two types of 'purposeful sampling', a methodological approach that is particularly suitable for a scoping review with our objectives. We will provide (a) a numerical synthesis of characteristics of the included studies and (b) a narrative synthesis of definitions and explanations in the literature of the relationship between data harmonisation and health management decision-making.DiscussionWe list potential limitations of this scoping review. To our knowledge, this scoping review will be the first to synthesise definitions and conceptualisations of data harmonisation in the literature as well as the underlying explanations in the literature of the causal links between data harmonisation and health management decision-making.
| S-EPMC6284298 | biostudies-literature