Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2021 | Research

“I must, and I can live with that”: a thematic analysis of patients’ perspectives on polypharmacy and a digital decision support system for GPs

Authors: Robin Brünn, Beate S. Müller, Benno Flaig, Petra Kellermann-Mühlhoff, Ute Karbach, Sara Söling, Christiane Muth, Marjan van den Akker, AdAM Study consortium

Published in: BMC Primary Care | Issue 1/2021

Abstract

Background

To investigate patients’ perspectives on polypharmacy and the use of a digital decision support system to assist general practitioners (GPs) in performing medication reviews.

Methods

Qualitative interviews with patients or informal caregivers recruited from participants in a cluster-randomized controlled clinical trial (cRCT). The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using thematic analysis.

Results

We conducted 13 interviews and identified the following seven themes: the patients successfully integrated medication use in their everyday lives, used medication plans, had both good and bad personal experiences with their drugs, regarded their healthcare providers as the main source of medication-related information, discussed medication changes with their GPs, had trusting relationships with them, and viewed the use of digital decision support tools for medication reviews positively. No unwanted adverse effects were reported.

Conclusions

Despite drug-related problems, patients appeared to cope well with their medications. They also trusted their GPs, despite acknowledging polypharmacy to be a complex field for them. The use of a digital support system was appreciated and linked to the hope that reasons for selecting specific medication regimens would become more comprehensible. Further research with a more diverse sampling might add more patient perspectives.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03430336. Registered on February 6, 2018.

Available only for authorised users

Masnoon N, Shakib S, Kalisch-Ellett L, Caughey GE. What is polypharmacy? A systematic review of definitions. BMC Geriatr. 2017;17:230. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-017-0621-2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Guthrie B, Makubate B, Hernandez-Santiago V, Dreischulte T. The rising tide of polypharmacy and drug-drug interactions: population database analysis 1995–2010. BMC Med. 2015;13:74. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0322-7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Boyd CM, Darer J, Boult C, Fried LP, Boult L, Wu AW. Clinical practice guidelines and quality of care for older patients with multiple comorbid diseases: implications for pay for performance. JAMA. 2005;294:716–24.CrossRef

Muth C, Kirchner H, van den Akker M, Scherer M, Glasziou PP. Current guidelines poorly address multimorbidity: pilot of the interaction matrix method. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67:1242–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.07.004.CrossRefPubMed

Duerden M, Avery T, Payne R. Polypharmacy and medicines optimisation: Making it safe and sound. London; 2013.

McCracken R, McCormack J, McGregor MJ, Wong ST, Garrison S. Associations between polypharmacy and treatment intensity for hypertension and diabetes: a cross-sectional study of nursing home patients in British Columbia Canada. BMJ Open. 2017;7: e017430. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017430.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Altice F, Evuarherhe O, Shina S, Carter G, Beaubrun AC. Adherence to HIV treatment regimens: systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2019;13:475–90. https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S192735.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Kim SJ, Kwon OD, Cho B, Oh S-W, Lee CM, Choi H-C. Effects of combination drugs on antihypertensive medication adherence in a real-world setting: a Korean Nationwide Study. BMJ Open. 2019;9: e029862. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029862.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Barnett NL, Oboh L, Smith K. Patient-centred management of polypharmacy: a process for practice. Eur J Hosp Pharm. 2016;23:113–7. https://doi.org/10.1136/ejhpharm-2015-000762.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Uhl MC, Muth C, Gerlach FM, Schoch G-G, Müller BS. Patient-perceived barriers and facilitators to the implementation of a medication review in primary care: a qualitative thematic analysis. BMC Fam Pract. 2018;19:3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-017-0707-0.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Alameddine M, Tamim H, Hadid D, Cheaito M-A, Makki M, Maatouk H, Hitti E. Patient attitudes toward mobile device use by health care providers in the emergency department: cross-sectional survey. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020;8: e16917. https://doi.org/10.2196/16917.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

van Summeren JJ, Schuling J, Haaijer-Ruskamp FM, Denig P. Outcome prioritisation tool for medication review in older patients with multimorbidity: a pilot study in general practice. Br J Gen Pract. 2017;67:e501–6. https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp17X690485.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Ahn J, Park JE, Anthony C, Burke M. Understanding, benefits and difficulties of home medicines review – patients’ perspectives. Aust Fam Physician. 2015;44:249–53.PubMed

14.

World Health Organization. The use of the WHO-UMC system for standardised case causality assessment.

15.

Guyatt GH, Alonso-Coello P, Schünemann HJ, Djulbegovic B, Nothacker M, Lange S, et al. Guideline panels should seldom make good practice statements: guidance from the GRADE Working Group. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;80:3–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.07.006.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Pope C, Mays N, editors. Qualitative research in health care. 3rd ed. Malden: Blackwell Publishing Ltd; 2006.

17.

Clyne B, Cooper JA, Boland F, Hughes CM, Fahey T, Smith SM. Beliefs about prescribed medication among older patients with polypharmacy: a mixed methods study in primary care. Br J Gen Pract. 2017;67:e507–18. https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp17X691073.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Moen J, Bohm A, Tillenius T, Antonov K, Nilsson JLG, Ring L. “I don’t know how many of these medicines are necessary” - a focus group study among elderly users of multiple medicines. Patient Educ Couns. 2009;74:135–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2008.08.019.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Joseph-Williams N, Elwyn G, Edwards A. Knowledge is not power for patients: a systematic review and thematic synthesis of patient-reported barriers and facilitators to shared decision making. Patient Educ Couns. 2014;94:291–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2013.10.031.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Patschkowski C, González AI, Blom JW, Glynn LG, van Driel ML, Muth C. Underreporting of harms in heart failure trials: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Z Allgemeinmed. 2020;96:406–13.

21.

Roth DL, Fredman L, Haley WE. Informal caregiving and its impact on health: a reappraisal from population-based studies. Gerontologist. 2015;55:309–19. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnu177.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Swartz K, Collins LG. Caregiver care. Am Fam Physician. 2019;99:699–706.PubMed

23.

Söling S, Köberlein-Neu J, Müller BS, Dinh TS, Muth C, Pfaff H, Karbach U. From sensitization to adoption? A qualitative study of the implementation of a digitally supported intervention for clinical decision making in polypharmacy. Implement Sci. 2020;15:82. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-020-01043-6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Denneboom W, Dautzenberg MGH, Grol R, de Smet PAGM. Treatment reviews of older people on polypharmacy in primary care: cluster controlled trial comparing two approaches. Br J Gen Pract. 2007;57:723–31.PubMedPubMedCentral

25.

Martin P, Tamblyn R, Benedetti A, Ahmed S, Tannenbaum C. Effect of a pharmacist-led educational intervention on inappropriate medication prescriptions in older adults: The D-PRESCRIBE randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2018;320:1889–98. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.16131.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Tsakitzidis G, Timmermans O, Callewaert N, Verhoeven V, Lopez-Hartmann M, Truijen S, et al. Outcome indicators on interprofessional collaboration interventions for elderly. Int J Integr Care. 2016;16:5. https://doi.org/10.5334/ijic.2017.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Title: “I must, and I can live with that”: a thematic analysis of patients’ perspectives on polypharmacy and a digital decision support system for GPs
Authors: Robin Brünn
Beate S. Müller
Benno Flaig
Petra Kellermann-Mühlhoff
Ute Karbach
Sara Söling
Christiane Muth
Marjan van den Akker
AdAM Study consortium
Publication date: 01-12-2021
Publisher: BioMed Central
Published in: BMC Primary Care / Issue 1/2021
Electronic ISSN: 2731-4553
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-021-01517-6

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

“I must, and I can live with that”: a thematic analysis of patients’ perspectives on polypharmacy and a digital decision support system for GPs

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Trial registration

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Trial registration

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

From their own perspectives: a qualitative study exploring the perceptions of traditional health practitioners in northern Uganda regarding cancers, their causes and treatments

The influence of a MOBile-based video Instruction for Low back pain (MOBIL) on initial care decisions made by primary care providers: a randomized controlled trial

Implementation of targeted screening for poverty in a large primary care team in Toronto, Canada: a feasibility study

Prerequisites for providing effective support to family caregivers within the primary care setting – results of a study series in Germany

Optimising personal continuity for older patients in general practice: a study protocol for a cluster randomised stepped wedge pragmatic trial

How do colorectal cancer patients rate their GP: a mixed methods study