Protocol to evaluate the feasibility of the D-PRESCRIBE intervention adapted to the Belgian community setting (END-IT CS study)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Benzodiazepine receptor agonists (BZRA) deprescribing interventions are needed to tackle high BZRA use in the older population. This study aims to assess the feasibility of the D-PRESCRIBE intervention, adapted from Canada to the Belgian community setting. This pharmacist-led intervention comprises a patient educational brochure and a pharmacist-to-prescriber communication tool. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a feasibility study of a cluster randomised controlled trial involving 8-10 community pharmacies (clusters) and aiming to recruit 56-80 patients (≥65 years). Intervention pharmacies will deliver the adapted D-PRESCRIBE intervention and control pharmacies, usual care. Patients will be blinded to group allocation. Quantitative data will be collected at baseline, 3 months and 6 months through patients' and pharmacists' questionnaires, aiming: (1) to test the feasibility of the intervention, (2) to test the feasibility of the study design needed for its evaluation and (3) to perform an exploratory cost-effectiveness analysis. Hence, data about implementation outcomes, mechanisms of impact (ie, mechanisms through which the intervention is supposed to be effective) and contextual factors will be gathered. Patient-centred outcomes will also be collected as they would be in a full cost-effectiveness trial. The feasibility of the study design will be assessed through participation rate, completeness of the data and a satisfaction survey, sent to participants after the 6-month data collection. Data will be analysed using descriptive statistics. To gain a deeper understanding of pharmacists and patients' experience with the intervention, interviews will be conducted after the 6-month data collection and the Theoretical Domains Framework will be used as a deductive framework for analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of CHU UCL Namur (NUB: B0392023000036). Participants will receive a summary of the results. Results will also be disseminated through the organisation of a local symposium and a peer-reviewed publication. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05929417.
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 | 0.056 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.093 | 0.023 |
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".