Developing a complex intervention targeting antipsychotic prescribing to nursing home residents with dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background : Antipsychotics are commonly prescribed to people living with dementia in nursing home settings, despite strong guideline recommendations against their use except in limited circumstances. We aimed to transparently describe the development process for a complex intervention targeting appropriate requesting and prescribing of antipsychotics to nursing home residents with dementia in Ireland, by nurses and general practitioners (GPs) respectively. Methods : We report the development process for the ‘Rationalising Antipsychotic Prescribing in Dementia’ (RAPID) complex intervention, in accordance with the ‘Guidance for reporting intervention development studies in health research’ (GUIDED) checklist. The UK Medical Research Council framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions guided our overall approach, incorporating evidence and theory into the intervention development process. To unpack the intervention development process in greater detail, we followed the Behaviour Change Wheel approach. Guided by our stakeholders, we conducted three sequential studies (systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis, primary qualitative study and expert consensus study), to inform the intervention development. Results : The RAPID complex intervention was developed in collaboration with a broad range of stakeholders, including people living with dementia and family carers, between 2015 and 2017. The finalised RAPID complex intervention was comprised of the following three components; 1) Education and training sessions with nursing home staff; 2) Academic detailing with GPs; 3) Introduction of an assessment tool to the nursing home. Conclusions : This paper describes the steps used by the researchers to develop a complex intervention targeting antipsychotic prescribing to nursing home residents with dementia in Ireland, according to the GUIDED checklist. We found that the GUIDED checklist provided a useful way of reporting all elements in a cohesive manner and complemented the other tools and frameworks used. Transparency in the intervention development processes can help in the translation of evidence into practice.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.040 | 0.093 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".