Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Jul 20:4:23.
doi: 10.1186/s40814-017-0166-3. eCollection 2018.

A feasibility study of a theory-based intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy for older people in primary care

Cathal A Cadogan  1 , Cristín Ryan  1 , Gerard J Gormley  2 , Jill J Francis  3 , Peter Passmore  4 , Ngaire Kerse  5 , Carmel M Hughes  6
Affiliations

A feasibility study of a theory-based intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy for older people in primary care

Cathal A Cadogan et al. Pilot Feasibility Stud. .

Erratum in

  • Erratum to: Pilot and Feasibility Studies, Vol. 4.
    Pilot and Feasibility Studies. Pilot and Feasibility Studies. Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2017 Oct 24;3:48. doi: 10.1186/s40814-017-0183-2. eCollection 2017. Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2017. PMID: 29123916 Free PMC article.

Abstract

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.

Keywords: Behaviour change; Feasibility; General practice; Intervention; Polypharmacy; Prescribing; Theoretical Domains Framework.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The ethical approval was granted by the Office of Research Ethics Committees Northern Ireland (REC reference 15/NI/0104). All the participants received information about the study when first invited to participate and provided written informed consent.

Consent for publication

The consent to publish the data collected as part of this project was given by all the participants.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Avorn J. Medication use in older patients: better policy could encourage better practice. JAMA. 2010;304(14):1606–7. doi: 10.1001/jama.2010.1495. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Sumukadas D, McMurdo ME, Mangoni AA, Guthrie B. Temporal trends in anticholinergic medication prescription in older people: repeated cross-sectional analysis of population prescribing data. Age Ageing. 2014;43(4):515–21. doi: 10.1093/ageing/aft199. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hovstadius B, Hovstadius K, Astrand B, Petersson G. Increasing polypharmacy—an individual-based study of the Swedish population 2005-2008. BMC Clin. Pharmacol. 2010;10:16. doi: 10.1186/1472-6904-10-16. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Payne RA, Avery AJ. Polypharmacy: one of the greatest prescribing challenges in general practice. Br. J. Gen. Pract. 2011;61(583):83–4. doi: 10.3399/bjgp11X556146. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. The King’s Fund. Polypharmacy and medicines optimisation: making it safe and sound. London: The King’s Fund; 2013.