MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1547286347 · doi:10.1186/s13063-015-0791-1

A consumer-targeted, pharmacist-led, educational intervention to reduce inappropriate medication use in community older adults (D-PRESCRIBE trial): study protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial

2015· article· en· W1547286347 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Philippe Martin, Robyn Tamblyn, Sara Ahmed, Andrea Benedetti, Cara Tannenbaum

Bibliographic record

VenueTrials · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health CentreUniversité de MontréalInstitut Universitaire de Gériatrie de Montréal
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineMedical prescriptionPolypharmacyRandomized controlled trialIntervention (counseling)Beers CriteriaDeprescribingCluster randomised controlled trialPharmacistGeriatricsFamily medicinePsychiatryNursingIntensive care medicinePharmacy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Medication safety for older persons represents an ongoing challenge. Inappropriate prescriptions--those with a high risk of evidence-based harm--persist in up to 25% of seniors, and account for a significant proportion of avoidable emergency department visits. This project is the sequel to the EMPOWER study, in which a novel consumer-targeted written knowledge transfer tool aimed at empowering older adults to act as drivers of benzodiazepine de-prescription resulted in a 27% reduction of inappropriate benzodiazepine use at 6-month follow-up (number needed to treat (NNT) = 4). Failure to discontinue in the EMPOWER study was attributable to re-emerging symptoms among participants, prescribing inertia, and lack of knowledge and skills for substituting alternate therapy among physicians and pharmacists. To maximize de-prescription of inappropriate therapy, educational medication-risk reduction initiatives should be tested that simultaneously include patients, physicians and pharmacists. The objective of this trial is to: 1) test the beneficial effect of a new de-prescribing paradigm enlisting pharmacists to transfer knowledge to both patients and prescribers in a 2-pronged approach to reduce inappropriate prescriptions, compared to usual care and 2) evaluate the transferability of the EMPOWER study concept to other classes of inappropriate prescriptions. METHODS: We intend to conduct a 3-year pragmatic cluster randomized parallel-group controlled trial to test the effect of the new de-prescribing intervention compared to usual care for reducing 4 classes of inappropriate prescriptions from the 2012 Beers criteria among 450 community-dwelling older adults with polypharmacy. Inappropriate prescriptions will include benzodiazepines, sulfonylurea hypoglycemic agents, first generation antihistamines and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. The study population is community-dwelling older adults recruited from community pharmacies in Quebec, Canada. The intervention was developed based on a systematic review of the evidence for each medication. Participants in the experimental group will receive the written educational program following randomization and have their pharmacist send their physicians an evidence-based pharmaceutical opinion to recommend de-prescription and be followed for a year. The control group will be wait-listed for 6 months. DISCUSSION: System change to effectively reduce medication risk among community-dwelling seniors requires a coordinated approach targeting physicians, pharmacists and patients. This trial will test the feasibility and effectiveness of a tripartite approach to de-prescribing. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered via ClinicalTrials.gov on 31 January 2014, identifier: NCT02053194.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.185

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.005
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0060.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0550.009

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.389
GPT teacher head0.553
Teacher spread0.164 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations33
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTrialsSame topicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient OutcomesFrench-language works237,207