Prescribing and deprescribing in very old age: perceptions of very old adults, caregivers and health professionals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: although they are major consumers of medications, there is little evidence-based data to guide prescribing and deprescribing of medications for very old adults (80+ years). OBJECTIVES: to discover the perceptions of very old adults, caregivers and health professionals in order to further examine the clinical and ethical issues raised by prescribing and deprescribing in very old age. METHODS: individual interviews were conducted with very old adults (n = 10) and caregivers (n = 6), whereas group interviews were conducted with health professionals (n = 11). The themes covered included perceptions of medication use, polypharmacy, deprescribing and patient-health professional relationships. Thematic analysis was used to identify areas of convergence and divergence. RESULTS: very old adults are satisfied with the medications they are taking, do not see the need to reduce their medication use and consider their doctor as the expert who should make the decisions regarding treatment. The perceptions of caregivers are similar to those of older adults, whereas health professionals believe that very old adults take a lot of inappropriate medications and list multiple barriers to deprescribing. All participants describe a normalisation of medication use with ageing. CONCLUSION: there is a dichotomy between the perception of the very old adults/caregivers and that of health professionals regarding the safety of medication in very old age. A cultural change regarding medication use seems essential to optimise therapy and support deprescribing in clinical practice since the potential issues raised by researchers do not resonate with the main stakeholders.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".