Co-design workshops to develop evidence synthesis summary formats for use by clinical guideline development groups.

BACKGROUND: Evidence synthesis is used by decision-makers in various ways, such as developing evidence-based recommendations for clinical guidelines. Clinical guideline development groups (GDGs) typically discuss evidence synthesis findings in a multidisciplinary group, including patients, healthcare providers, policymakers, etc. A recent mixed methods systematic review (MMSR) identified no gold standard format for optimally presenting evidence synthesis findings to these groups. However, it provided 94 recommendations to help produce more effective summary formats for general evidence syntheses (e.g., systematic reviews). To refine the MMSR recommendations to create more actionable guidance for summary producers, we aimed to explore these 94 recommendations with participants involved in evidence synthesis and guideline development. METHODS: We conducted a descriptive qualitative study using online focus group workshops in February and March 2023. These groups used a participatory co-design approach with interactive voting activities to identify preferences for a summary format's essential content and style. We created a topic guide focused on recommendations from the MMSR with mixed methods support, ≥ 3 supporting studies, and those prioritized by an expert advisory group via a pragmatic prioritization exercise using the MoSCoW method (Must, Should, Could, and Will not haves). Eligible participants must be/have been involved in GDGs and/or evidence synthesis. Groups were recorded and transcribed. Two independent researchers analyzed transcripts using directed content analysis with 94 pre-defined codes from the MMSR. RESULTS: Thirty individuals participated in six focus groups. We coded 79 of the 94 pre-defined codes. Participants suggested a "less is more" structured approach that minimizes methodological steps and statistical data, promoting accessibility to all audiences by judicious use of links to further information in the full report. They emphasized concise, consistently presented formats that highlight key messages, flag readers to indicators of trust in the producers (i.e., logos, websites, and conflict of interest statements), and highlight the certainty of evidence (without extenuating details). CONCLUSIONS: This study identified guidance based on the preferences of guideline developers and evidence synthesis producers about the format of evidence synthesis summaries to support decision-making. The next steps involve developing and user-testing prototype formats through one-on-one semi-structured interviews to optimize evidence synthesis summaries and support decision-making.

An international modified Delphi process supported updating the web-based "right review" tool.

OBJECTIVES: The proliferation of evidence synthesis methods makes it challenging for reviewers to select the ''right'' method. This study aimed to update the Right Review tool (a web-based decision support tool that guides users through a series of questions for recommending evidence synthesis methods) and establish a common set of questions for the synthesis of both quantitative and qualitative studies (https://rightreview.knowledgetranslation.net/). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A 2-round modified international electronic modified Delphi was conducted (2022) with researchers, health-care providers, patients, and policy makers. Panel members rated the importance/clarity of the Right Review tool's guiding questions, evidence synthesis type definitions and tool output. High agreement was defined as at least 70% agreement. Any items not reaching high agreement after round 2 were discussed by the international Project Steering Group. RESULTS: Twenty-four experts from 9 countries completed round 1, with 12 completing round 2. Of the 46 items presented in round 1, 21 reached high agreement. Twenty-seven items were presented in round 2, with 8 reaching high agreement. The Project Steering Group discussed items not reaching high agreement, including 8 guiding questions, 9 review definitions (predominantly related to qualitative synthesis), and 2 output items. Three items were removed entirely and the remaining 16 revised and edited and/or combined with existing items. The final tool comprises 42 items; 9 guiding questions, 25 evidence synthesis definitions and approaches, and 8 tool outputs. CONCLUSION: The freely accessible Right Review tool supports choosing an appropriate review method. The design and clarity of this tool was enhanced by harnessing the Delphi technique to shape ongoing development. The updated tool is expected to be available in Quarter 1, 2025.

Embedding formal and experiential public and patient involvement training in a structured PhD programme: process and impact evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Incorporating Public and Patient Involvement (PPI) into doctoral research is valued by PhD funders and scholars. Providing early career researchers with appropriate training to develop skills to conduct meaningful PPI involvement is important. The Health Research Board (HRB) Collaborative Doctoral Award in MultiMorbidity programme (CDA-MM) embedded formal PPI training in its structured education. The four participating PhD scholars established a PPI panel comprising people living with two or more chronic conditions, presenting an opportunity for experiential PPI training. This study aimed to evaluate the process and impact of embedding PPI training in a structured PhD programme. METHODS: This study was a longitudinal mixed-methods evaluation, conducted over 24 months (June 2020 to June 2022). A process evaluation provided an understanding of how PPI was embedded and explored the experiences of key stakeholders involved. An impact evaluation assessed the impact of embedding PPI training in the programme. Participants included PhD scholars, PPI contributors and PhD supervisors. The data collection and analysis was led by an independent researcher not aligned with the CDA-MM. Data collection methods included five focus groups, individual interviews (n = 6), an impact log, activity logs and group reflections. Qualitative data were analysed using thematic and content analysis and quantitative data analysed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Embedding formal and experiential PPI training in a structured PhD programme is feasible. Both approaches to training are fundamental to building PPI capacity. Involvement of an experienced and knowledgeable PPI lead throughout is perceived as critical. The PPI panel approach offered a good example of embedded consultation and worked well in a structured PhD programme, providing PhD scholars with ample opportunities for learning about PPI and its implementation. For PPI contributors, culture was the most important indicator of quality and was positively evaluated. Key roles for PhD supervisors were identified. Embedding formal and experiential PPI training impacted positively on many different aspects of individual PhD research projects and on PhD scholars as researchers. There were positive impacts for PPI contributors and PhD supervisors. CONCLUSIONS: Embedding formal and experiential PPI training in a structured PhD programme is a novel approach. The evaluation has identified a number of lessons that can inform future doctoral programmes seeking to embed formal and experiential PPI training.

Four PhD scholars participated in the CDA-MM. They received training and support from a PPI lead on how to conduct PPI in research. They established a PPI panel of people with two or more ongoing health conditions, to enable PhD scholars to get input from PPI contributors and learn how to do PPI well. An evaluation study was conducted to explore how the PhD scholars conducted PPI, how well it worked, the difference it made and to identify messages for PhD scholars wishing to involve PPI contributors. For the evaluation, the PPI contributors, PhD scholars and PhD supervisors were asked about their experiences and views. For many of the PPI contributors, being part of the CDA-MM PPI panel was their first experience of being involved in PPI. The ongoing support they received from PhD scholars was important. For them, relationships and the way that meetings are conducted matter for doing PPI well. They liked working in small groups and on concrete issues. They found the time they were expected to give was reasonable and within acceptable limits. They preferred in-person meetings. According to PPI contributors, when PPI is done well, it has benefits for the research, particularly ensuring that plain language is used and jargon avoided when researchers communicate with people with two or more ongoing health conditions. PhD scholars benefit from getting the patient perspective and learning how to communicate their research to patients. PPI contributors benefit in many different ways. Some PPI contributors argued that the PPI advisory panel worked so well in the CDA-MM that no changes were needed, whereas others would like to explore different ways of being involved in research.

Prescribing differences among older adults with differing health cover and socioeconomic status: a cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: As health reforms move Ireland from a mixed public-private system toward universal healthcare, it is important to understand variations in prescribing practice for patients with differing health cover and socioeconomic status. This study aims to determine how prescribing patterns for patients aged ≥ 65 years in primary care in Ireland differ between patients with public and private health cover. METHODS: This was an observational study using anonymised data collected as part of a larger study from 44 general practices in Ireland (2011-2018). Data were extracted from electronic records relating to demographics and prescribing for patients aged ≥ 65 years. The cohort was divided between those with public health cover (via the General Medical Services (GMS) scheme) and those without. Standardised rates of prescribing were calculated for pre-specified drug classes. We also analysed the number of medications, polypharmacy, and trends over time between groups, using multilevel linear regression adjusting for age and sex, and hospitalisations. RESULTS: Overall, 42,456 individuals were included (56% female). Most were covered by the GMS scheme (62%, n = 26,490). The rate of prescribing in all drug classes was higher for GMS patients compared to non-GMS patients, with the greatest difference in benzodiazepine anxiolytics. The mean number of unique medications prescribed to GMS patients was 10.9 (SD 5.9), and 8.1 (SD 5.8) for non-GMS patients. The number of unique medications prescribed to both GMS and non-GMS cohorts increased over time. The increase was steeper in the GMS group where the mean number of medications prescribed increased by 0.67 medications/year. The rate of increase was 0.13 (95%CI 0.13, 0.14) medications/year lower for non-GMS patients, a statistically significant difference. CONCLUSION: Our study found a significantly larger number of medications were prescribed to patients with public health cover, compared to those without. Increasing medication burden and polypharmacy among older adults may be accelerated for those of lower socioeconomic status. These findings may inform planning for moves towards universal health care, and this would provide an opportunity to evaluate the effect of expanding entitlement on prescribing and medications use.

GP preferences for, access to, and use of evidence in clinical practice: a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: GPs aim to provide patient-centred care combining clinical evidence, clinical judgement, and patient priorities. Despite a recognition of the need to translate evidence to support patient care, barriers exist to the use of evidence in practice. AIM: To ascertain the needs and preferences of GPs regarding evidence-based guidance to support patient care. The study also aimed to prioritise content and optimise structure and dissemination of future evidence-based guidance. DESIGN & SETTING: This was a convergent parallel mixed-methods study in collaboration with the national GP professional body in the Republic of Ireland (Irish College of General Practitioners [ICGP]). Quantitative and qualitative findings were integrated at the interpretive level. METHOD: A national GP survey was administered via the ICGP (December 2020) and seven GP focus groups were undertaken (April-May 2021). RESULTS: Of 3496 GPs, a total of 509 responders (14.6%) completed the survey and 40 GP participants took part in focus groups. Prescribing updates, interpretation of test results, chronic disease management, and older person care were the preferred topics for future evidence-based guidance. GPs reported that they required rapid access to up-to-date and relevant evidence summaries online for use in clinical practice. Access to more comprehensive reviews for the purposes of continuing education and teaching was also a priority. Multimodal forms of dissemination were preferred to increase uptake of evidence in practice. CONCLUSION: GPs indicated that rapid access to up-to-date, summarised evidence-based resources, available from their professional organisation, is preferred. Evidence should reflect the disease burden of the population and involve multifaceted dissemination approaches.

Primary care-based models of care for osteoarthritis; a scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: To identify and describe the extent, nature, characteristics, and impact of primary care-based models of care (MoCs) for osteoarthritis (OA) that have been developed and/or evaluated. DESIGN: Six electronic databases were searched from 2010 to May 2022. Relevant data were extracted and collated for narrative synthesis. RESULTS: Sixty-three studies pertaining to 37 discrete MoCs from 13 countries were included, of which 23 (62%) could be classified as OA management programmes (OAMPs) comprising a self-management intervention to be delivered as a discrete package. Four models (11%) focussed on enhancing the initial consultation between a patient presenting with OA at the first point of contact into a local health system and the clinician. Emphasis was placed on educational training for general practitioners (GPs) and allied healthcare professionals delivering this initial consultation. The remaining 10 MoCs (27%) detailed integrated care pathways of onward referral to specialist secondary orthopaedic and rheumatology care within local healthcare systems. The majority (35/37; 95%) were developed in high-income countries and 32/37 (87%) targeted hip/and or knee OA. Frequently identified model components included GP-led care, referral to primary care services and multidisciplinary care. The models were predominantly 'one-size fits all' and lacked individualised care approaches. A minority of MoCs, 5/37 (14%) were developed using underlying frameworks, three (8%) of which incorporated behaviour change theories, while 13/37 (35%) incorporated provider training. Thirty-four of the 37 models (92%) were evaluated. Outcome domains most frequently reported included clinical outcomes, followed by system- and provider-level outcomes. While there was evidence of improved quality of OA care associated with the models, effects on clinical outcomes were mixed. CONCLUSION: There are emerging efforts internationally to develop evidence-based models focused on non-surgical primary care OA management. Notwithstanding variations in healthcare systems and resources, future research should focus on model development alignment with implementation science frameworks and theories, key stakeholder involvement including patient and public representation, provision of training and education for providers, treatment individualisation, integration and coordination of services across the care continuum and incorporation of behaviour change strategies to foster long-term adherence and self-management.

Recruiting general practitioners and older patients with multimorbidity to randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Older patients with multimorbidity are under-represented in experimental research. OBJECTIVE: To explore the barriers and facilitators to general practitioner (GP) and older patient recruitment and retention in a cluster randomized controlled trial (RCT). METHOD: This descriptive study uses qualitative and quantitative data from a cluster RCT, designed to evaluate the effectiveness of a medicines optimization intervention. The SPPiRE cluster RCT enrolled 51 general practices and 404 patients aged ≥65 years and prescribed ≥15 medicines. Quantitative data were collected from all recruited practices and 32 additional practices who were enrolled, but unable to recruit sufficient participants. Qualitative data were collected from purposive samples of intervention GPs (18/26), patients (27/208), and researcher logs and analysed thematically using inductive coding. RESULTS: Enrolment rates for practices and patients were 37% and 25%, respectively. Barriers to GP recruitment were lack of resources and to patient recruitment were difficulty understanding trial material and concern about medicines being taken away. GPs' primary motivation was perceived importance of the research question, whereas patients' primary motivation was trust in their GP. All general practices were retained. Thirty-five patients (8.6%) were lost to follow-up for primary outcomes, mainly because they had died and 45% did not return patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). CONCLUSION: Patient retention for the primary outcome was high, as it was collected directly from patient records. Patient completion of PROM data was poor, reflecting difficulty in understanding trial material. Recruiting older patients with multimorbidity to clinical trials is possible but requires significant resource and planning. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN12752680.

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) often exclude older people with multiple medical conditions. The aim of this study was to explore how and why participants took part in a primary care based RCT that included 51 general practitioners (GPs) and 404 older patients prescribed ≥15 medicines. The RCT was designed to assess the usefulness of a supported medication review. The study team assessed information that was already collected as part of the RCT, to describe the process of inviting and enrolling GPs and older people. This included information on the numbers invited and enrolled and interviews from a smaller sample of GPs (18) and older people (27). The study successfully enrolled the required number of participants but it took 26 months more than planned. 37% of invited GPs and 25% of invited patients took part. GPs felt the research was important but they identified lack of time and resources as barriers to participation. Older people predominantly took part because they trusted their GP but some were wary of having medicines taken away and were put off by trial documentation. It is important that RCTs including older people with multiple medical conditions carefully plan recruitment and pay careful attention to trial documentation.

Association between patient attitudes towards deprescribing and subsequent prescription changes.

Deprescribing is an essential component of safe prescribing, especially for people with higher levels of polypharmacy. Identifying individuals prepared to consider medicine changes may facilitate deprescribing-orientated reviews. We aimed to explore the relationship between revised patients' attitudes towards deprescribing (rPATD) scores and medication changes in older people prescribed ≥15 medicines. A secondary analysis of rPATD scores and prescription data from a cluster randomised controlled trial of a GP-delivered, deprescribing-orientated medication review was conducted. The association between number of medicines stopped, started and changed and baseline rPATD scores was assessed using Poisson regression, adjusting for patient age, gender, study group allocation, baseline number of medicines and effects of clustering. Participants (n = 404) had a mean age of 76.4 years and were prescribed a mean of 17.1 medicines at baseline. Willingness to stop a medicine was associated with higher rates of both deprescribing (IRR: 1.40; 95% CI: 1.06-1.84) and initiating medicines (IRR: 1.43; 95% CI: 1.09-1.88). Satisfaction with current medicines was associated with a lower rate of deprescribing (IRR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.57-0.85). The rPATD questionnaire could be used as part of a deprescribing intervention to identify participants who may be prepared to engage in deprescribing, enabling more efficient use of clinician time during complex consultations.

Strong recommendations from low certainty evidence: a cross-sectional analysis of a suite of national guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines should be based on a thorough evaluation of the evidence and generally include a rating of the quality of evidence and assign a strength to recommendations. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) guidance warns against making strong recommendations when the certainty of the evidence is low or very low, but has identified five paradigmatic situations (e.g. life-threatening situations) where this may be justified. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: We aimed to characterize the strength of recommendations and certainty of the evidence in Irish National Clinical Guidelines using the GRADE approach. METHODS: All National Clinical Guidelines from the National Clinical Effectiveness Committee (NCEC) website using the GRADE approach (fully or partially) were included. All recommendations and their corresponding certainty of the evidence, strength of recommendations and justifications were extracted. Authors classified instances of strong recommendations with low certainty evidence (referred to as discordant recommendations) into one of the five paradigmatic situations. Descriptive statistics were calculated. RESULTS: From the 29 NCEC Clinical Guidelines available at the time of analysis, we identified 8 guidelines using GRADE with a total of 240 recommendations; 38 recommendations did not use the GRADE approach and were excluded. Half of the included guidelines focused on emergency situations. In the final dataset of 202 recommendations, 151 (74.7%) were classified as strong and 51 (25.3%) as conditional. Of the 151 strong recommendations, 55 (36.4%) were supported by high or moderate certainty evidence and 96 (63.6%) by low or very low certainty evidence and were considered discordant. Of these 96 discordant recommendations, 55 (73.7%) were consistent with one of the five paradigmatic situations. However, none were specifically described as such within the guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of discordant recommendations identified in this analysis was higher than some previous international studies (range of all strong recommendations being discordant 30-50%), but similar to other guidelines focused on emergency situations. The majority of discordant recommendations could be mapped to one of the five situations, but no National Clinical Guideline explicitly referenced this. Guideline developers require further guidance to enable greater transparency in the reporting of the reasons for discordant recommendations.

The effectiveness and cost of integrating pharmacists within general practice to optimize prescribing and health outcomes in primary care patients with polypharmacy: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Polypharmacy and associated potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) place a considerable burden on patients and represent a challenge for general practitioners (GPs). Integration of pharmacists within general practice (herein 'pharmacist integration') may improve medications management and patient outcomes. This systematic review assessed the effectiveness and costs of pharmacist integration. METHODS: A systematic search of ten databases from inception to January 2021 was conducted. Studies that evaluated the effectiveness or cost of pharmacist integration were included. Eligible interventions were those that targeted medications optimization compared to usual GP care without pharmacist integration (herein 'usual care'). Primary outcomes were PIP (as measured by PIP screening tools) and number of prescribed medications. Secondary outcomes included health-related quality of life, health service utilization, clinical outcomes, and costs. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-RCTs, interrupted-time-series, controlled before-after trials and health-economic studies were included. Screening and risk of bias using Cochrane EPOC criteria were conducted by two reviewers independently. A narrative synthesis and meta-analysis of outcomes where possible, were conducted; the certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. RESULTS: In total, 23 studies (28 full text articles) met the inclusion criteria. In ten of 11 studies, pharmacist integration probably reduced PIP in comparison to usual care (moderate certainty evidence). A meta-analysis of number of medications in seven studies reported a mean difference of -0.80 [-1.17, -0.43], which indicated pharmacist integration probably reduced number of medicines (moderate certainty evidence). It was uncertain whether pharmacist integration improved health-related quality of life because the certainty of evidence was very low. Twelve health-economic studies were included; three investigated cost effectiveness. The outcome measured differed across studies limiting comparisons and making it difficult to make conclusions on cost effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacist integration probably reduced PIP and number of medications however, there was no clear effect on other patient outcomes; and while interventions in a small number of studies appeared to be cost-effective, further robust, well-designed cluster RCTs with economic evaluations are required to determine cost-effectiveness of pharmacist integration. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CRD42019139679.

A scoping review of evidence-based guidance and guidelines published by general practice professional organizations.

BACKGROUND: General practitioners (GPs) need robust, up-to-date evidence to deliver high-quality patient care. There is limited literature regarding the role of international GP professional organizations in developing and publishing clinical guidelines to support GPs clinical decision making. OBJECTIVE: To identify evidence-based guidance and clinical guidelines produced by GP professional organizations and summarize their content, structure, and methods of development and dissemination. METHODS: Scoping review of GP professional organizations following Joanna Briggs Institute guidance. Four databases were searched and a grey literature search was conducted. Studies were included if they were: (i) evidence-based guidance documents or clinical guidelines produced de novo by a national GP professional organization, (ii) developed to support GPs clinical care, and (iii) published in the last 10 years. GP professional organizations were contacted to provide supplementary information. A narrative synthesis was performed. RESULTS: Six GP professional organizations and 60 guidelines were included. The most common de novo guideline topics were mental health, cardiovascular disease, neurology, pregnancy and women's health and preventive care. All guidelines were developed using a standard evidence-synthesis method. All included documents were disseminated through downloadable pdfs and peer review publications. GP professional organizations indicated that they generally collaborate with or endorse guidelines developed by national or international guideline producing bodies. CONCLUSION: The findings of this scoping review provide an overview of de novo guideline development by GP professional organizations and can support collaboration between GP organizations worldwide thus reducing duplication of effort, facilitating reproducibility, and identifying areas of standardization. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/JXQ26.

Impact of malnutrition management e-learning module on GPs' knowledge: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Malnutrition is underdiagnosed in primary care. GPs are key healthcare contacts for older adults at risk of protein-energy malnutrition; however, lack of knowledge and confidence in its diagnosis and treatment is often reported. AIM: To evaluate the impact of a bespoke online education module on GP malnutrition knowledge and management. DESIGN & SETTING: A prospective pre-post pilot study with 23 GPs and eight GP trainees in the Republic of Ireland. METHOD: The module included units on the following: 'malnutrition definition, prevalence, and latest evidence'; 'identifying malnutrition in clinical practice'; 'food-first advice'; 'reviewing malnutrition'; and 'oral nutritional supplements'. Participant knowledge was measured using a multiple choice questionnaire (MCQ) before and after the module (n = 31), and 6 weeks following completion (n = 11). Case studies assessing identification and management of malnutrition were evaluated by a clinical specialist dietitian with expertise in managing malnutrition. Changes in assessment performance were calculated using paired t-tests. Acceptability was evaluated using a questionnaire. RESULTS: Post-training, 97% of GPs increased MCQ scores from baseline (+25%, P<0.001), with the greatest improvement in 'identifying malnutrition in clinical practice' (mean increase 47%, P<0.001). Eleven GPs completed the 6-week MCQ with scores remaining significantly higher than baseline (mean increase 15%, P = 0.005); 'identifying malnutrition in clinical practice' remained the most highly scored (mean increase 40%, P<0.001). Seventeen GPs completed the case studies; 76% at baseline and 88% post-module correctly calculated malnutrition risk scores. Appropriate malnutrition management improved for 47% of GPs after module completion. CONCLUSION: This e-learning module improved malnutrition knowledge, with good short-term retention in a small cohort. Development of online evidence-based nutrition education may improve GP nutrition care.

Medication changes and potentially inappropriate prescribing in older patients with significant polypharmacy.

BACKGROUND: Number of medicines and medicines appropriateness are often used as outcome measures to evaluate the effectiveness of deprescribing interventions. AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate changes in prescribing, potentially inappropriate prescriptions (PIP) and prescribing of low-value medicines in older people with multimorbidity and significant polypharmacy. METHOD: This study was a retrospective secondary analysis of prescription data from a cluster randomised controlled trial involving 404 participants aged ≥ 65 years and prescribed ≥ 15 repeat medicines from 51 different general practices. For this study, repeat medications at baseline and follow-up (~ 1 year later) were assigned Anatomical Therapeutic Classification (ATC) codes. Outcomes were the most commonly prescribed and potentially inappropriately prescribed drug groups, the most frequently discontinued or initiated drug groups and the number of changes per person between baseline and follow-up. RESULTS: There were 7051 medicines prescribed to 404 participants at baseline. There was a median of 17 medicines (IQR 15-19) at baseline and 16 (IQR 14-19) at follow-up. PIP represented 17.1% of prescriptions at baseline and 15.7% (n = 6777) at follow-up. There were reductions in the prescription of most drug groups with the largest reduction in antiplatelet prescriptions. Considering medication discontinuations, initiations and switches, there was a median of five medication changes per person (range 0-30, IQR 3-9) by follow-up. There were 95 low-value prescriptions at baseline reducing to 78 at follow-up. CONCLUSION: The number of medication changes per person was not reflected by summarising medication count at two time points, highlighting the complexity of prescribing for patients with polypharmacy. Frequent medication changes has potentially important implications for patients in terms of adherence and medication safety. TRIAL REGISTRY: The SPPiRE trial was registered prospectively on the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN12752680).

Perspectives on the production, and use, of rapid evidence in decision making during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: To describe perceptions of providing, and using rapid evidence, to support decision making by two national bodies (one public health policy and one front-line clinical practice) during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Descriptive qualitative study (March-August 2020): 25 semistructured interviews were conducted, transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed. SETTING: Data were obtained as part of an evaluation of two Irish national projects; the Irish COVID-19 Evidence for General Practitioners project (General Practice (GP) project) which provided relevant evidence to address clinical questions posed by GPs; and the COVID-19 Evidence Synthesis Team (Health Policy project) which produced rapid evidence products at the request of the National Public Health Emergency Team. PARTICIPANTS: Purposive sample of 14 evidence providers (EPs: generated and disseminated rapid evidence) and 11 service ssers (SUs: GPs and policy-makers, who used the evidence). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Participant perceptions. RESULTS: The Policy Project comprised 27 EPs, producing 30 reports across 1432 person-work-days. The GP project comprised 10 members from 3 organisations, meeting 49 times and posting evidence-based answers to 126 questions. Four unique themes were generated. 'The Work' highlighted that a structured but flexible organisational approach to producing evidence was essential. Ensuring quality of evidence products was challenging, particularly in the context of absent or poor-quality evidence. 'The Use' highlighted that rapid evidence products were considered invaluable to decision making. Trust and credibility of EPs were key, however, communication difficulties were highlighted by SUs (eg, website functionality). 'The Team' emphasised that a highly skilled team, working collaboratively, is essential to meeting the substantial workload demands and tight turnaround time. 'The Future' highlighted that investing in resources, planning and embedding evidence synthesis support, is crucial to national emergency preparedness. CONCLUSIONS: Rapid evidence products were considered invaluable to decision making. The credibility of EPs, a close relationship with SUs and having a highly skilled and adaptable team to meet the workload demands were identified as key strengths that optimised the utilisation of rapid evidence. ETHICS APPROVAL: Ethical approval was obtained from the National Research Ethics Committee for COVID-19-related Research, Ireland.

Investigating different typologies for the synthesis of evidence: a scoping review protocol.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this scoping review is to identify evidence synthesis types and previously proposed classification systems, typologies, or taxonomies that have guided evidence synthesis. INTRODUCTION: Evidence synthesis is a constantly evolving field. There is now a plethora of evidence synthesis approaches used across many different disciplines. Historically, there have been numerous attempts to organize the types and methods of evidence synthesis in the form of classification systems, typologies, or taxonomies. This scoping review will seek to identify all the available classification systems, typologies, or taxonomies; how they were developed; their characteristics; and the types of evidence syntheses included within them. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This scoping review will include discussion papers, commentaries, books, editorials, manuals, handbooks, and guidance from major organizations that describe multiple approaches to evidence synthesis in any discipline. METHODS: The Evidence Synthesis Taxonomy Initiative will support this scoping review. The search strategy will aim to locate both published and unpublished documents utilizing a three-step search strategy. An exploratory search of MEDLINE has identified keywords and MeSH terms. A second search of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL with Full Text, ERIC, Scopus, Compendex, and JSTOR will be conducted. The websites of relevant evidence synthesis organizations will be searched. Identified documents will be independently screened, selected, and extracted by two researchers, and the data will be presented in tables and summarized descriptively. DETAILS OF THIS REVIEW PROJECT ARE AVAILABLE AT: Open Science Framework https://osf.io/qwc27.

Cost-effectiveness of metabolic surgery for the treatment of type 2 diabetes and obesity: a systematic review of economic evaluations.

AIM: To systematically identify and appraise the international literature on the cost-effectiveness of metabolic surgery for the treatment of comorbid type 2 diabetes (T2D) and obesity. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in electronic databases and grey literature sources up to 20 January 2021. Economic evaluations in a T2D population or a subpopulation with T2D were eligible for inclusion. Screening, data extraction, critical appraisal of methodological quality (Consensus Health Economic Criteria list) and assessment of transferability (International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research questionnaire) were undertaken in duplicate. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was the main outcome. Costs were reported in 2020 Irish Euro. Cost-effectiveness was interpreted using willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds of €20,000 and €45,000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Due to heterogeneity arising from various sources, a narrative synthesis was undertaken. RESULTS: Thirty studies across seventeen jurisdictions met the inclusion criteria; 16 specifically in a T2D population and 14 in a subpopulation with T2D. Overall, metabolic surgery was found to be cost-effective or cost-saving. Where undertaken, the results were robust to sensitivity and scenario analyses. Of the 30 studies included, 15 were considered high quality. Identified limitations included limited long-term follow-up data and uncertainty regarding the utility associated with T2D remission. CONCLUSION: Published high-quality studies suggest metabolic surgery is a cost-effective or cost-saving intervention. As the prevalence of obesity and obesity-related diseases increases worldwide, significant investment and careful consideration of the resource requirements needed for metabolic surgery programmes will be necessary to ensure that service provision is adequate to meet demand.

Protocol for Establishing a Stakeholder Group for Primary Care Research into Cancer Using a Modified 7P Framework and an e-Delphi Process.

Introduction: Currently, no group specifically supports and coordinates primary care focused cancer research in Ireland. The aim of this project is to establish an inclusive stakeholder group for primary care focused cancer research in Ireland, to coordinate research efforts and build capacity in researchers and institutions. Methods: We will convene a stakeholder group, recruiting individuals with personal and professional experience of cancer care in a community setting. "Core stakeholders"-patients, clinicians, researchers, and policymakers-will attend regularly. Additional "specialist stakeholders", such as representatives of secondary care, private healthcare, health insurance, industry, cancer charities, and health research funders, will participate on an ad hoc basis. An e-Delphi consensus process will be used to assess the stakeholders' views on: (1) the relevance and importance of primary care focused cancer research; (2) the potential role and scope of the stakeholder group; (3) how best to engage with lived experience stakeholders and healthcare professionals affected by the research; (4) how to encourage the dissemination of results and the translation of findings into practice. Round 1 will be open-ended and will invite the independent suggestions of stakeholders; in Round 2 and 3, group members will vote on the inclusion of these suggestions in a position statement by the group, with consensus defined as ≥75% agreement. Discussion: The formation of a broad stakeholder group to support primary care focused cancer research will ensure research is relevant, patient centered, and more readily translated into practice. It is also hoped that the group will support capacity building and strategic planning in this important research space.

What is the impact of multimorbidity on out-of-pocket healthcare expenditure among community-dwelling older adults in Ireland? A cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: Individuals with multimorbidity use more health services and take more medicines. This can lead to high out-of-pocket (OOP) healthcare expenditure. This study, therefore, aimed to assess the association between multimorbidity (two or more chronic conditions) and OOP healthcare expenditure in a nationally representative sample of adults aged 50 years or over. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of data collected in 2016 from wave 4 of The Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing.SettingIreland.ParticipantsCommunity-dwelling adults aged 50 years and over.MethodA generalised linear model with log-link and gamma distributed errors was fitted to assess the association between multimorbidity and OOP healthcare expenditure (including general practitioner, emergency department, outpatients, specialist consultations, hospital admissions, home care and prescription drugs). RESULTS: Overall, 3453 (58.5%) participants had multimorbidity. Among those with any OOP healthcare expenditure, individuals with multimorbidity spent more on average per annum (€806.8 for two conditions, €885.8 for three or more conditions), than individuals with no conditions (€580.3). Pharmacy-dispensed medicine expenditure was the largest component of expenditure. People with multimorbidity on average spent more of their equivalised household income on healthcare (7.1% for two conditions, 9.7% for three or more conditions), than people with no conditions (5.0%). A strong positive association was found between number of conditions and OOP healthcare expenditure (p<0.001) and between having private health insurance and OOP healthcare expenditure (p<0.001). A strong negative association was found between eligibility for free primary/hospital care and heavily subsidised medicines and OOP healthcare expenditure (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that having multimorbidity in Ireland increases OOP healthcare expenditure, which is problematic for those with more conditions who have lower incomes. This highlights the need for this financial burden to be considered when designing healthcare/funding systems to address multimorbidity, so that access to essential healthcare can be maximised for those with greatest need.

Patient and general practitioner experiences of implementing a medication review intervention in older people with multimorbidity: Process evaluation of the SPPiRE trial.

INTRODUCTION: The SPPiRE cluster randomized controlled trial found that a general practitioner (GP)-delivered medication review that incorporated screening for potentially inappropriate prescriptions (PIP), a brown bag review and a patient priority assessment, resulted in a significant but small reduction in the number of medicines and no significant reduction in PIP. This process evaluation aims to explore the experiences of GPs and patients and the potential for system-wide implementation. METHODS: The trial included 51 general practices and 404 participants with multimorbidity aged ≥65 years, prescribed ≥15 medicines. The process evaluation used mixed methods and ran parallel to the trial. Quantitative data was collected from the SPPiRE intervention website and analysed descriptively. Qualitative data on medication changes were collected from intervention GPs (18/26) and a purposive sample of intervention patients (27/208) via semi-structured telephone interviews. All interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using a thematic analysis. Qualitative and quantitative data were integrated using a triangulation protocol. RESULTS: The analysis generated two themes, intervention implementation and mechanisms of action, and both were underpinned by the theme of context. Intervention delivery varied among practices and 45 patients (28%) had no review, primarily due to insufficient GP time. 80% of reviewed patients had ≥1 PIP identified, 59% had ≥1 problem identified during the brown bag review and 79% had ≥1 priority recorded. The brown bag review resulted in the most deprescription of medications. GPs and patients responded positively to the intervention but most GPs did not engage with the patient priority-setting process. GPs identified a lack of integration into practice software and resources as barriers to future implementation. CONCLUSION: The SPPiRE intervention had a small effect in reducing the number of medicines and this was primarily mediated through the brown bag review. The context of resource shortages and deep-seated views around medical decision-making influenced intervention implementation. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Qualitative data on the implementation of the medication review and their wider views on their medicines was collected from older people with multimorbidity through semi-structured telephone interviews. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The SPPiRE trial was registered prospectively on the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN12752680).