Dataset Information

Protocol for a process evaluation of an external pilot cluster randomised controlled trial of a theory-based intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy in older people in primary care: the PolyPrime study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The PolyPrime intervention is a theory-based intervention aimed at improving appropriate polypharmacy in older people (aged ≥65 years) in primary care. The intervention consists of an online video which demonstrates how general practitioners (GPs) can prescribe appropriate polypharmacy during a consultation with an older patient and a patient recall process, whereby patients are invited to scheduled medication review consultations with GPs. The aim of the process evaluation is to further examine the implementation of the PolyPrime intervention in primary care. This will involve investigating whether the PolyPrime intervention can be delivered as intended across two healthcare systems, how acceptable the intervention is to GPs, practice staff and patients, and to identify the intervention's likely mechanisms of action.

Methods

The PolyPrime study is an external pilot cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) which aims to recruit 12 GP practices across Northern Ireland [NI] (n=6) and the six counties in the Republic of Ireland (ROI) that border NI (n=6). Practices have been randomised to intervention or usual care. An embedded process evaluation will assess intervention fidelity (i.e. was the intervention delivered as intended), acceptability of the intervention to GPs, practice staff and patients and potential mechanisms of action (i.e. what components of the intervention were perceived to be effective). Quantitative data will be collected from data collection forms completed by GPs and practice staff and a feedback questionnaire completed by patients from intervention arm practices, which will be analysed using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data will be collected through semi-structured interviews with GPs and practice staff and audio-recordings of medication review appointments from the intervention arm practices which will be transcribed and analysed using the framework method. Quantitative and qualitative data will be triangulated to provide an overall assessment of intervention fidelity, intervention acceptability, and mechanisms of action.

Discussion

This process evaluation will add to feasibility data from the pilot cRCT by providing evidence on the fidelity of implementing the intervention package across two healthcare systems, the acceptability of the intervention and potential mechanisms of action.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov ISRCTN41009897 . Registered on 19 November 2019. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04181879 . Registered 02 December 2019.

SUBMITTER: Rankin A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8278187 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundFor older populations with multimorbidity, polypharmacy (use of multiple medications) is a standard practice. PolyPrime is a theory-based intervention developed to improve appropriate polypharmacy in older people in primary care. This pilot study aims to assess the feasibility of the PolyPrime intervention in primary care in Northern Ireland (NI) and the Republic of Ireland (ROI).MethodsThis external pilot cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) aimed to recruit 12 general practitioner (GP) practices (six in NI; six in the ROI counties that border NI) and ten older patients receiving polypharmacy (≥ 4 medications) per GP practice (n = 120). Practices allocated to the intervention arm watched an online video and scheduled medication reviews with patients on two occasions. We assessed the feasibility of collecting GP record (medication appropriateness, health service use) and patient self-reported data [health-related quality of life (HRQoL), health service use)] at baseline, 6 and 9 months. HRQoL was measured using the EuroQol-5 dimension-5 level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) and medication-related burden quality-of-life (MRB-QoL) tool. An embedded process evaluation and health economics analysis were also undertaken. Pre-specified progression criteria were used to determine whether to proceed to a definitive cRCT.ResultsTwelve GP practices were recruited and randomised. Three GP practices withdrew from the study due to COVID-related factors. Sixty-eight patients were recruited, with 47 (69.1%) being retained until the end of the study. GP record data were available for 47 patients for medication appropriateness analysis at 9 months. EQ-5D-5L and MRB-QoL data were available for 46 and 41 patients, respectively, at 9 months. GP record and patient self-reported health service use data were available for 47 patients at 9 months. Health service use was comparable in terms of overall cost estimated from GP record versus patient self-reported data. The intervention was successfully delivered as intended; it was acceptable to GPs, practice staff, and patients; and potential mechanisms of action have been identified. All five progression criteria were met (two 'Go', three 'Amend').ConclusionDespite challenges faced during the COVID-19 pandemic, this study has demonstrated that it may be feasible to conduct an intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy in older people in primary care across two healthcare jurisdictions.Trial registrationISRCTN, ISRCTN41009897 . Registered 19 November 2019.Clinicaltrialsgov, NCT04181879 . Registered 02 December 2019.

Project description:BackgroundThe use of multiple medications (polypharmacy) is a concern in older people (≥65 years) and is associated with negative health outcomes. For older populations with multimorbidity, polypharmacy is the reality and the key challenge is ensuring appropriate polypharmacy (as opposed to inappropriate polypharmacy). This external pilot cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) aims to further test a theory-based intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy in older people in primary care in two jurisdictions, Northern Ireland (NI) and the Republic of Ireland (ROI).MethodsTwelve GP practices across NI (n=6) and the six counties in the ROI that border NI will be randomised to either the intervention or usual care group. Members of the research team have developed an intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy in older people in primary care using the Theoretical Domains Framework of behaviour change. The intervention consists of two components: (1) an online video which demonstrates how a GP may prescribe appropriate polypharmacy during a consultation with an older patient and (2) a patient recall process, whereby patients are invited to scheduled medication review consultations with GPs. Ten older patients receiving polypharmacy (≥4 medications) will be recruited per GP practice (n=120). GP practices allocated to the intervention arm will be asked to watch the online video and schedule medication reviews with patients on two occasions; an initial and a 6-month follow-up appointment. GP practices allocated to the control arm will continue to provide usual care to patients. The study will assess the feasibility of recruitment, retention and study procedures including collecting data on medication appropriateness (from GP records), quality of life and health service use (i.e. hospitalisations). An embedded process evaluation will assess intervention fidelity (i.e. was the intervention delivered as intended), acceptability of the intervention and potential mechanisms of action.DiscussionThis pilot cRCT will provide evidence of the feasibility of a range of study parameters such as recruitment and retention, data collection procedures and the acceptability of the intervention. Pre-specified progression criteria will also be used to determine whether or not to proceed to a definitive cRCT.Trial registrationISRCTN, ISRCTN41009897 . Registered 19 November 2019. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04181879 . Registered 02 December 2019.

Project description:BACKGROUND:A general practitioner (GP)-targeted intervention aimed at improving the prescribing of appropriate polypharmacy for older people was previously developed using a systematic, theory-based approach based on the UK Medical Research Council's complex intervention framework. The primary intervention component comprised a video demonstration of a GP prescribing appropriate polypharmacy during a consultation with an older patient. The video was delivered to GPs online and included feedback emphasising the positive outcomes of performing the behaviour. As a complementary intervention component, patients were invited to scheduled medication review consultations with GPs. This study aimed to test the feasibility of the intervention and study procedures (recruitment, data collection). METHODS:GPs from two general practices were given access to the video, and reception staff scheduled consultations with older patients receiving polypharmacy (?4 medicines). Primary feasibility study outcomes were the usability and acceptability of the intervention to GPs. Feedback was collected from GP and patient participants using structured questionnaires. Clinical data were also extracted from recruited patients' medical records (baseline and 1 month post-consultation). The feasibility of applying validated assessment of prescribing appropriateness (STOPP/START criteria, Medication Appropriateness Index) and medication regimen complexity (Medication Regimen Complexity Index) to these data was investigated. Data analysis was descriptive, providing an overview of participants' feedback and clinical assessment findings. RESULTS:Four GPs and ten patients were recruited across two practices. The intervention was considered usable and acceptable by GPs. Some reservations were expressed by GPs as to whether the video truly reflected resource and time pressures encountered in the general practice working environment. Patient feedback on the scheduled consultations was positive. Patients welcomed the opportunity to have their medications reviewed. Due to the short time to follow-up and a lack of detailed clinical information in patient records, it was not feasible to detect any prescribing changes or to apply the assessment tools to patients' clinical data. CONCLUSION:The findings will help to further refine the intervention and study procedures (including time to follow-up) which will be tested in a randomised pilot study that will inform the design of a definitive trial to evaluate the intervention's effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ISRCTN18176245.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Joint contractures in frail older people are associated with serious restrictions in participation. We developed the Participation Enabling CAre in Nursing (PECAN) intervention, a complex intervention to enable nurses to promote participation in nursing home residents with joint contractures. The aim of this study was to examine the feasibility of the implementation strategy and to identify enablers and barriers for a successful implementation. METHODS:The implementation of PECAN was investigated in a 6-month pilot cluster-randomised controlled trial (c-RCT). As a key component of the implementation strategy, nominated nurses were trained as facilitators in a one-day workshop and supported by peer-mentoring (visit, telephone counselling). A mixed-methods approach was conducted in conjunction with the pilot trial and guided by a framework for process evaluations of c-RCTs. Data were collected using standardised questionnaires (nursing staff), documentation forms, problem-centred qualitative interviews (facilitators, therapists, social workers, relatives, peer-mentors), and a group discussion (facilitators). A set of predefined criteria on the nursing home level was examined. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data were analysed using directed content analysis. RESULTS:Seven nursing homes (n =?4 intervention groups, n =?3 control groups) in two regions of Germany took part in the study. Facilitators responded well to the qualification measures (workshop participation: 14/14; workshop rating: "good"; peer-mentor visit participation: 10/14). The usage of peer-mentoring via telephone varied (one to seven contacts per nursing home). Our implementation strategy was not successful in connection with supplying the intervention to all the nurses. The clear commitment of the entire nursing home and the respect for the expertise of different healthcare professionals were emphasised as enablers, whereas a lack of impact on organisational conditions and routines and a lack of time and staff competence were mentioned as barriers. CONCLUSION:The PECAN intervention was delivered as planned to the facilitators but was unable to produce comprehensive changes in the nursing homes and subsequently for the residents. Strategies to systematically include the management and the nursing team from the beginning are needed to support the facilitators during implementation in the main trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION:German clinical trials register, DRKS00010037 . Registered 12 February 2016.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the effects of a computerised decision support tool for comprehensive drug review in elderly people with polypharmacy.DesignPragmatic, multicentre, cluster randomised controlled trial.Setting359 general practices in Austria, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom.Participants3904 adults aged 75 years and older using eight or more drugs on a regular basis, recruited by their general practitioner.InterventionA newly developed electronic decision support tool comprising a comprehensive drug review to support general practitioners in deprescribing potentially inappropriate and non-evidence based drugs. Doctors were randomly allocated to either the electronic decision support tool or to provide treatment as usual.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was the composite of unplanned hospital admission or death by 24 months. The key secondary outcome was reduction in the number of drugs.Results3904 adults were enrolled between January and October 2015. 181 practices and 1953 participants were assigned to electronic decision support (intervention group) and 178 practices and 1951 participants to treatment as usual (control group). The primary outcome (composite of unplanned hospital admission or death by 24 months) occurred in 871 (44.6%) participants in the intervention group and 944 (48.4%) in the control group. In an intention-to-treat analysis the odds ratio of the composite outcome was 0.88 (95% confidence interval 0.73 to 1.07; P=0.19, 997 of 1953 v 1055 of 1951). In an analysis restricted to participants attending practice according to protocol, a difference was found favouring the intervention (odds ratio 0.82, 95% confidence interval 0.68 to 0.98; 774 of 1682 v 873 of 1712, P=0.03). By 24 months the number of prescribed drugs had decreased in the intervention group compared with control group (uncontrolled mean change -0.42 v 0.06: adjusted mean difference -0.45, 95% confidence interval -0.63 to -0.26; P<0.001).ConclusionsIn intention-to-treat analysis, a computerised decision support tool for comprehensive drug review of elderly people with polypharmacy showed no conclusive effects on the composite of unplanned hospital admission or death by 24 months. Nonetheless, a reduction in drugs was achieved without detriment to patient outcomes.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN10137559.

Project description:Cocaine use disorder (CUD) is a debilitating condition with no NICE-recommended medication or specific psychosocial interventions. In the United Kingdom (UK), general counselling (treatment-as-usual; TAU) is widely delivered, but has limited effectiveness. We tested the feasibility, safety and preliminary efficacy of a novel, adjunctive psychosocial intervention for CUD, called 'memory-focused cognitive therapy' (MFCT).We did a two-arm, external pilot randomised controlled trial at a specialist community National Health Service addictions clinic in London, UK. 30 adults (?18years), voluntarily seeking treatment for CUD (enrolled ?14days; all with moderate-to-severe DSM5 CUD), were individually randomised (1:1) to a control group (ongoing TAU; 3×90min CUD cognitive conceptualisation assessments; 2×30min cocaine-related cue-induction procedures; and 3×30min research follow-ups); or to an intervention group (ongoing TAU; 3×90min cognitive conceptualisation assessments; 2×30min cocaine-related cue-induction procedures; 5×120min, one-to-one, MFCT sessions [in 1week]; and 3×60min research follow-ups and MFCT-relapse prevention). The primary outcome was the total percentage score on the frequency version of the Craving Experiences Questionnaire (CEQ-F) at 1-month follow-up after the intensive intervention week (clinical endpoint; recall period past 2weeks; higher score indicating greater craving). Secondary outcomes at the 1-month follow-up were percentage days abstinent (PDA) from cocaine, and longest period (days) of continuous abstinence (LPA) in the prior 28days. Outcomes were analysed as an unadjusted group mean difference (with Hedge's g effect size [ES]) and a 95% Confidence Interval [CI] for the primary outcome and a 90% CI for the secondary outcomes. Exploratory, multivariable linear (primary outcome) and Poisson regression models (secondary outcomes), with sex, age, months of regular cocaine use, baseline outcome score, and group estimated the effectiveness of the intervention. The trial is registered with the ISCRTN (ISRCTN16462783).Between July 15, 2015, and November 27, 2016, 58 patients were assessed for eligibility and 30 participants were randomised (14 to the control group and 16 to the intervention). With outcome data collected for all participants at the endpoint, the intervention group mean CEQ-F score (14·77; SD 21·47) was lower than the control group mean (51·75; SD 22·72); ES -1·62; 95% CI -2·45 to -0·80. MFCT was associated with more cocaine abstinence in the intervention group (PDA 85·94; SD 18·96) than the control group (PDA 54·59; SD 30·29); ES 1·19; 90% CI 0·54 to 1·84. There was also greater maximum abstinence in the intervention group (LPA 15·69; SD 10·10) than the control group (6·00; SD 7·36); ES 1·06; 90% CI 0·41 to 1·70. Exploratory, confounder-adjusted regression models for this preliminary effect supported the treatment association for reduced craving experiences (CEQ-F Coef. -28·25; 95% CI -45·15 to -11·35); more abstinence (PDA Incidence Rate Ratio [IRR] 1·56; 95% CI 1·31 to 1·88); and greater maximum abstinence (LPA IRR 2·56; 95% CI 1·96 to 3·35), although relative weak unmeasured confounding could overturn these model-adjusted exposure-outcome associations. There were four serious adverse events (among three participants). None were judged related to study procedures or interventions.In this first external pilot randomised controlled trial of MFCT for CUD, we have shown that the intervention and control procedures and acceptable feasible and safe, and report preliminary evidence that MFCT is associated with reduced craving and increased abstinence. These findings support progression to a substantive trial.UK National Institute for Health Research, Biomedical Research Centre.

Project description:BackgroundPolypharmacy is frequently observed in hip fracture patients. Although it is associated with an increased risk of hip fracture, polypharmacy often continues after hip fracture recovery. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy for elderly patients admitted to the hospital for hip fractures.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective observational study to compare the outcomes of patients receiving the intervention (n?=?32) with those of patients who received usual care (n?=?132). All hip fracture patients aged 65 years or older and prescribed 5 or more medications at admission from January 2015 to December 2016 were included in the study. The intervention consisted of an assessment by internal medicine physicians of the appropriateness of polypharmacy and the de-prescription of any unnecessary medications during the patients' hospital stay. The primary composite outcome was death or the first occurrence of any new fracture. Comparisons between the intervention and usual care groups were analyzed using binary logistic regression.ResultsA total of 164 patients were included in the study. The mean patient age was 84.8 years, and the mean numbers of prescribed medications and potentially inappropriate medications at admission were 8.0 and 1.3, respectively. The mean follow-up period was 8.0 months. The primary composite outcome occurred in 35 (21.3%) patients. The total number of potentially inappropriate medications at discharge was significantly lower in the intervention group than in the usual care group (0.8?±?0.8 for the intervention group vs 1.1?±?1.0 for the usual care group; p?=?0.03). However, no significant differences in the primary composite outcome were found between the intervention and usual care groups (7 in the intervention group and 28 in the usual care group, odds ratio 1.04, 95% CI 0.41-2.65; p?=?1.00).ConclusionsThe intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy was associated with a reduction in potentially inappropriate medications but not an improvement in clinical outcomes. This intervention, which focused only on polypharmacy, may not effectively improve outcomes for elderly patients with hip fractures.Trial registrationUMIN-CTR UMIN000025495 . Retrospectively registered 2 January 2017.