↓ Skip to main content

Improving appropriate polypharmacy for older people in primary care: selecting components of an evidence-based intervention to target prescribing and dispensing

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
14 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
58 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
192 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Improving appropriate polypharmacy for older people in primary care: selecting components of an evidence-based intervention to target prescribing and dispensing
Published in
Implementation Science, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13012-015-0349-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cathal A. Cadogan, Cristín Ryan, Jill J. Francis, Gerard J. Gormley, Peter Passmore, Ngaire Kerse, Carmel M. Hughes

Abstract

The use of multiple medicines (polypharmacy) is increasingly common in older people. Ensuring that patients receive the most appropriate combinations of medications (appropriate polypharmacy) is a significant challenge. The quality of evidence to support the effectiveness of interventions to improve appropriate polypharmacy is low. Systematic identification of mediators of behaviour change, using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), provides a theoretically robust evidence base to inform intervention design. This study aimed to (1) identify key theoretical domains that were perceived to influence the prescribing and dispensing of appropriate polypharmacy to older patients by general practitioners (GPs) and community pharmacists, and (2) map domains to associated behaviour change techniques (BCTs) to include as components of an intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy in older people in primary care. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with members of each healthcare professional (HCP) group using tailored topic guides based on TDF version 1 (12 domains). Questions covering each domain explored HCPs' perceptions of barriers and facilitators to ensuring the prescribing and dispensing of appropriate polypharmacy to older people. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data analysis involved the framework method and content analysis. Key domains were identified and mapped to BCTs based on established methods and discussion within the research team. Thirty HCPs were interviewed (15 GPs, 15 pharmacists). Eight key domains were identified, perceived to influence prescribing and dispensing of appropriate polypharmacy: 'Skills', 'Beliefs about capabilities', 'Beliefs about consequences', 'Environmental context and resources', 'Memory, attention and decision processes', 'Social/professional role and identity', 'Social influences' and 'Behavioural regulation'. Following mapping, four BCTs were selected for inclusion in an intervention for GPs or pharmacists: 'Action planning', 'Prompts/cues', 'Modelling or demonstrating of behaviour' and 'Salience of consequences'. An additional BCT ('Social support or encouragement') was selected for inclusion in a community pharmacy-based intervention in order to address barriers relating to interprofessional working that were encountered by pharmacists. Selected BCTs will be operationalised in a theory-based intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy for older people, to be delivered in GP practice and community pharmacy settings. Future research will involve development and feasibility testing of this intervention.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 192 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 190 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 16%
Researcher 24 13%
Student > Master 22 11%
Student > Bachelor 15 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 6%
Other 32 17%
Unknown 58 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 20%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 24 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 11%
Psychology 17 9%
Social Sciences 7 4%
Other 20 10%
Unknown 64 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 May 2017.
All research outputs
#4,159,618
of 22,914,829 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#836
of 1,722 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,951
of 353,489 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#20
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,914,829 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,722 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 353,489 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.