MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4401656940 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2024-085396

Deprescribing benzodiazepine receptor agonists in older adults: a mixed-methods study to adapt the Canadian D-PRESCRIBE intervention to the Belgian community setting

2024· article· en· W4401656940 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Catherine Pétein, Nathalie Dujardin, Manon de Montigny, Evelyne Dewez, Anne Spinewine, Séverine Henrard

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFonds De La Recherche Scientifique - FNRSUniversité Catholique de Louvain
KeywordsMedicineDeprescribingPsychological interventionContext (archaeology)Intervention (counseling)Medical prescriptionFocus groupFamily medicineNursingPolypharmacy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Guidelines recommend deprescribing benzodiazepine receptor agonists (BZRA) in older adults, yet implementation in clinical practice remains limited. Adapting effective, evidence-based interventions to a new context is a resource-saving strategy. In Canada, the D-PRESCRIBE intervention comprised a patient educational brochure and a pharmaceutical opinion inviting physicians to revise BZRA prescribing and consider safer alternatives. Due to its effectiveness on BZRA deprescribing among Canadian older adults, we aimed to adapt the D-PRESCRIBE intervention to the Belgian community setting. DESIGN: Recommendations from the ADAPT guidance, that provides a systematic approach for adapting interventions to new contexts, were followed. We conducted a mixed-methods study that comprised (1) group discussions and cognitive interviews to assess the acceptability and need for adaptation of the intervention's components and (2) a survey on the adapted pharmaceutical opinion. A research committee involving stakeholders' representatives decided on the adaptations, respecting the core functions of both tools. Changes in intervention components were reported following the Model for Adaptation Design and Impact framework. SETTING: Belgian French-speaking community setting. PARTICIPANTS: Six older adults (≥65 years), six general practitioners (GPs) and seven pharmacists participated in the group discussions or interviews. 46 GPs and 91 pharmacists responded to the survey. RESULTS: Participants welcomed the brochure positively. Still, some changes in the vocabulary, wording, photos and icons were made for several purposes including making the patient feel concerned about the brochure and softening the use of fear. The pharmaceutical opinion aroused mixed perceptions. Its name, layout and content were adapted to enhance its acceptability and fit with our healthcare system, practices and national guidelines. The survey highlighted several enablers and barriers to its use from the perspectives of GP and pharmacist. CONCLUSIONS: The Canadian D-PRESCRIBE intervention was adapted to the Belgian setting following a thorough and transparent process. Its feasibility will be tested in a future pilot study (NCT:05929417).

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.154
Threshold uncertainty score0.306

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.390 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicSleep and related disorders→French-language works237,207→