A review of trial and real-world data applying elements of a realist approach to identify behavioural mechanisms supporting practitioners to taper opioids.

This evidence synthesis applying realist concepts and behavioural science aimed to identify behavioural mechanisms and contexts that facilitate prescribers tapering opioids. We identified relevant opioid-tapering interventions and services from a 2018 international systematic review and a 2019 England-wide survey, respectively. Interventions and services were eligible if they provided information about contexts and/or behavioural mechanisms influencing opioid-tapering success. A stakeholder group (n = 23) generated draft programme theories based around the 14 domains of the Theoretical Domains Framework. We refined these using the trial and service data. From 71 articles and 21 survey responses, 56 and 16 respectively were included, representing primary care, hospital, specialist pain facilities and prison services. We identified 6 programme theories comprising 5 behavioural mechanisms: prescribers' knowledge about how to taper; build prescribers' beliefs about capabilities to initiate tapering discussions and manage psychological consequences of tapering; perceived professional role in tapering; the environmental context enabling referral to specialists; and facilitating positive social influence by aligning patient: prescriber expectations of tapering. No interventions are addressing all 6 mechanisms supportive of tapering. Work is required to operationalise programme theories according to organisational structures and resources. An example operationalisation is combining tapering guidelines with information about local excess opioid problems and endorsing these with organisational branding. Prescribers being given the skills and confidence to initiate tapering discussions by training them in cognitive-based interventions and incorporating access to psychological and physical support in the patient pathway. Patients being provided with leaflets about the tapering process and informed about the patient pathway.

Developing a core outcome set for hospital deprescribing trials for older people under the care of a geriatrician.

BACKGROUND: Half of older people are prescribed unnecessary/inappropriate medications that are not routinely deprescribed in hospital hence there is a need for deprescribing trials. We aimed to develop a Core Outcome Set (COS) for deprescribing trials for older people under the care of a geriatrician during hospital admission. METHODS: We developed a list of potentially relevant outcomes from the literature. Using a two-round Delphi survey of stakeholder groups representing older people and carers, hospital clinicians, hospital managers, and ageing/deprescribing researchers, each outcome was scored according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation, followed by two consensus workshops to finalise the COS. RESULTS: Two hundred people completed Round 1 and 114 completed Round 2. Representing all stakeholder groups, 10 people participated in workshop 1 and 10 in workshop 2. Six outcomes were identified as most important, feasible and acceptable to collect in a trial: number of prescribed medicines stopped; number of prescribed medicines with dosage reduced; quality of life; mortality; adverse drug events and number of hospital stays. Three other outcomes were identified as important, but currently too burdensome to collect: number of potentially inappropriate medicines prescribed; burden from medication routine; and medication-related admissions to hospital. CONCLUSIONS: A COS represents the minimum outcomes that should be collected and reported. Whilst uncommon practice for COS development, the value of considering outcome collection feasibility is demonstrated by the removal of three potential outcomes that, if included, may have compromised COS uptake due to challenges with collecting the data.

Mapping modifiable determinants of medication adherence in bipolar disorder (BD) to the theoretical domains framework (TDF): a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Around 40% of people with bipolar disorder (BD) are non-adherent to medication leading to relapse, hospitalisation and increased suicide risk. Limited progress in addressing non-adherence may be partly attributable to insufficient understanding of the modifiable determinants of adherence that require targeting in interventions. We synthesised the modifiable determinants of adherence in BD and map them to the theoretical domains framework (TDF). METHOD: We searched CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Embase, LILACS, Medline, PsychINFO and PubMed until February 2020. We included studies reporting modifiable determinants of adherence in BD. Two reviewers independently screened studies, assessed quality, extracted modifiable determinants and mapped them to TDF. RESULTS: We included 57 studies involving 32 894 participants. Determinants reported by patients spanned 11 of the 14 TDF domains compared to six domains represented by clinician/researcher. The TDF domains most commonly represented (% and example) in studies were: 'Environmental context and resources' (63%, e.g. experiencing side effects), 'Beliefs about consequences' (63%, e.g. beliefs about medication effects), 'Knowledge' (40%, e.g. knowledge about disorder), 'Social influences' (33%, e.g. support from family/clinicians), 'Memory, attention and decision processes' (33%, e.g. forgetfulness), 'Emotion' (21%, e.g. fear of addiction) and 'Intentions' (21%, e.g. wanting alternative treatment). 'Intentions', 'Memory, attention and decision processes' and 'Emotion' domains were only reported by patients but not clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians may be underappreciating the full range of modifiable determinants of adherence and thus not providing adherence support reflective of patients' needs. Reporting of modifiable determinants in behavioural terms facilitates developing theory-based interventions to address non-adherence in BD.

Do interventions to improve adherence to antiretroviral therapy recognise diversity? A systematic review.

People living with HIV (PLWH) are often culturally and linguistically diverse populations; these differences are associated with differing barriers to antiretroviral therapy (ART) adherence. Cultural competence measures the extent to which trial design recognises this diversity. This systematic review aimed to determine whether adherence trial participants represent the diversity of PLWH. Randomised Controlled Trials in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries to improve ART adherence were eligible. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. For all included trials, we searched for their development, testing and evaluation studies. We compared trial participant characteristics with nationally reported PLWH data. We appraised trial cultural competence against ten criteria; scoring each criterion as 0, 1 or 2 indicating cultural blindness, pre-competence or competence respectively. For 80 included trials, a further 13 studies presenting development/testing/evaluation data for the included trials were identified. Only one of the 80 included studies reported trial participants representative of the country's population of PLWH. The median (IQ) cultural competence score was 2.5 (1.0, 4.0) out of 20. HIV adherence trial participants are not reflective of the population with HIV, which may be due to limited adoption of culturally competent research methods.

A practitioner behaviour change intervention for deprescribing in the hospital setting.

BACKGROUND: hospital deprescribing trials have demonstrated marginal increases in deprescribing activity that are not sustained beyond the trial period. The hospital deprescribing implementation framework (hDIF) links barriers and enablers of deprescribing in hospital with 44 potential intervention components. This study aimed to support geriatricians and pharmacists to select and characterise hDIF components according to affordability, practicability, effectiveness, acceptability, safety and equity (APEASE) to design a deprescribing intervention in the English hospital setting. METHODS: we convened a modified Nominal Group Technique with a panel of nine geriatricians and pharmacists representing five English hospitals. Panel members selected and characterised intervention components from the hDIF based on the APEASE criteria. We set a consensus threshold of 80% agreement per APEASE criterion in order for the intervention component to be included. RESULTS: the panel selected five intervention components supporting engagement with deprescribing: an organisational action plan to prioritise deprescribing, two training activities to address pharmacists' beliefs about negative deprescribing consequences, restructuring pharmacists' working patterns to facilitate their contribution to deprescribing decisions, and sharing experiences of successfully engaging patients/family in deprescribing conversations to support others to do the same. A sixth component was selected to sustain engagement with deprescribing through measuring and sharing deprescribing activity achieved between teams. CONCLUSIONS: deprescribing interventions targeting geriatricians' and pharmacists' behaviour in the English hospital context should include the six characterised components. A component to sustain deprescribing activity is a notable omission from previously reported deprescribing interventions and may explain their failure to maintain efficacy beyond the short-term trial period.

Development of a hospital deprescribing implementation framework: A focus group study with geriatricians and pharmacists.

BACKGROUND: over 50% of older people in hospital are prescribed a pre-admission medicine that is potentially inappropriate; however, deprescribing by geriatricians and pharmacists is limited. This study aimed to characterise geriatricians' and pharmacists' barriers and enablers to deprescribing in hospital. It also intended to develop a framework of intervention components to facilitate implementation of hospital deprescribing. METHODS: fifty-four geriatricians and pharmacists representing four UK hospitals attended eight focus groups. We designed a topic guide to invite discussions about barriers and enablers to deprescribing. After thematic analysis, themes were mapped to the theoretical domains framework (TDF), enabling prioritisation of domains for behaviour change. We then identified evidence-based intervention components for changing behaviour within prioritised TDF domains. RESULTS: geriatricians and pharmacists described several deprescribing enablers in the hospital setting including alignment with their role and generalist knowledge, and routine patient monitoring. Five prioritised TDF domains represent the key barriers and enabler: patient and caregiver attachment to medication (social influence); perceptions that deprescribing is riskier than continuing to prescribe (beliefs about consequences); pharmacists' working patterns limiting capacity to support deprescribing (environmental context and resources); deprescribing being a low hospital priority (goals) and incentives to deprescribe (reinforcement). Prioritised TDF domains aligned with 44 evidence-based intervention components to address the barriers and enabler to hospital deprescribing. CONCLUSION: the behavioural determinants and their associated intervention components provide a hospital deprescribing implementation framework (hDIF). Intervention components should be selected from the hDIF to provide a theory and evidence-based intervention tailored to hospital contexts.

Attitudinal predictors of older peoples' and caregivers' desire to deprescribe in hospital.

BACKGROUND: Deprescribing is a partnership between practitioners, patients and caregivers. External characteristics including age, comorbidities and polypharmacy are poor predictors of attitude towards deprescribing. This hospital-based study aimed to describe the desire of patients and caregivers to be involved in medicine decision-making, and identify attitudinal predictors of desire to try stopping a medicine. METHODS: Patients and caregivers recruited from seven Older People's Medicine wards across two UK hospitals completed the revised Patients'Attitudes Towards Deprescribing (rPATD) questionnaire. Patients prescribed polypharmacy and caregivers involved in medication decision-making of such patients were eligible. A target of 150 patients and caregivers provided a 95% confidence interval of ±11.0% or smaller around rPATD item agreement. Descriptive statistics characterised participants and rPATD responses. Responses to items regarding desire to be involved in medication decision-making and desire to try stopping a medicine were used to address the aims. Binary logistic regression provided the adjusted odds ratios (OR) for predictors of desire to try stopping a medicine. RESULTS: Patient participants (N = 75) were a median (IQ) 87.0 (83.0, 90.0) years old and the median (IQ) number of pre-admission medication was 8.0 (6.0, 10.0). Caregiver participants (N = 76) were a median (IQ) 70.0 (57.0, 83.0) years old and the majority were a spouse (63.2%). For patients and caregivers respectively, the following were reported: 58.7 and 65.8% wanted to be involved in medication decision-making; 29.3 and 43.5% reported a desire to try stopping a medicine. Attitudinal predictors of low desire to try stopping a medicine for patients and caregivers are a perception that there are no unnecessary prescribed medicines [OR = 0.179 (patients) and 0.044 (caregivers)] and no desire for dose reduction [OR = 0.199 (patients) and 0.024 (caregivers)]. A perception of not being prescribed too many medicines also predicted low patient desire to try stopping a medicine [OR = 0.195]. CONCLUSION: A substantial proportion of patients and caregivers did not want to be involved medication decision-making, however this should not result in practitioners dismissing deprescribing opportunities. The three diagnostic indicators for establishing desire to try stopping a medicine are perceived necessity of the medicine, appropriateness of the number prescribed medications and a desire for dose reduction.

Systematic review of the health and societal effects of medication organisation devices.

BACKGROUND: Suboptimal medication adherence is a significant threat to public health and resources. Devices that organise weekly doses by time and day are commonly used to reduce unintentional non-adherence. However, there is limited evidence to support their use. This systematic review was conducted to evaluate current evidence for their efficacy, safety and costs. METHODS: A pre-defined search of electronic databases from inception to January 2013 augmented with hand-searching was conducted. No limits were placed on publication date. Studies that compared organisation devices used by patients administering their own medication with standard medication packaging regardless of study design were eligible for inclusion. Studies that solely explored dispensing aspects of organisation devices were included whether or not they compared this to standard care. Screening of articles for inclusion and data extraction were completed independently by two reviewers with disagreements resolved by discussion. Outcomes were categorised into impact on health, medication adherence, healthcare utilisation, dispensing errors, supply procedures and costs. Risk of bias was also assessed. RESULTS: Seventeen studies met the inclusion criteria. Health outcomes were investigated in seven studies of which three reported a positive effect associated with organisation devices. Medication adherence was reported in eight studies of which three reported a positive effect. Three studies reported health care utilisation data but overall results are inconclusive. No optimal dispensing or supply procedures were identified. Economic assessment of the impact of organisation devices is lacking. All studies were subject to a high risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence regarding the effects of medication organisation devices was limited, and the available evidence was susceptible to a high risk of bias. Organisation devices may help unintentional medication non-adherence and could improve health outcomes. There is a strong need for more studies that explore the impact of such devices on patients, and an equally pressing need for studies that explore the impacts on healthcare services. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This systematic review is registered with PROSPERO (Registration number CRD42011001718 ).

A comparison of measures used to describe adherence to glaucoma medication in a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the magnitude of non-adherence in pre-marketing clinical trials and clinical practice is essential. However, accurately measuring non-adherence to medication is problematic, and the variety of adherence measures and/or calculation methods has led to highly variable results. PURPOSE: To compare commonly used methods for measuring adherence to eye drop therapy in order to assess which methods achieve the most complete datasets over an 8-month monitoring period, to quantify the magnitude of variance in adherence estimations and to review the different methods used to calculate or interpret adherence data. METHODS: Adherence was measured electronically for 8 months by participants administering eye drops using a Travalert® dosing aid. The mean number of Travalert dosing aid recorded doses administered over the monitoring period was used to calculate a percentage adherence score. In addition, the value of graphically presenting Travalert dosing aid data to classify patterns of adherence behaviour was explored. The validated Morisky Measure of Adherence Scale and questions requesting participants to report the Frequency of Missed Doses were two measures of self-reported adherence calculated for each participant. Finally, medication possession ratio was calculated from expected repeat prescription orders compared with actual repeat prescription orders. RESULTS: For the 208 recruited participants, self-reported adherence was the most reliable method of collecting complete datasets over the 8-month period; 16% of self-reported adherence data were missing compared with 45% of Travalert dosing aid data missing at 8 months. The mean adherence measured over the monitoring period by the Travalert dosing aid was 77%. When adherence measures were dichotomised into adherent and non-adherent groups, the Travalert dosing aid found 54% of participants were adherent, compared to 60% Morisky Measure of Adherence Scale and 57% Frequency of Missed Dose self-report measures. However, there was poor agreement between the Travalert dosing aid measured adherence and self-report measures. Medication possession ratio was not a reliable measure of persistence with medication. Graphical Travalert dosing aid data presentation provided additional information about participant behaviour by indicating that most non-adherence was due to participants taking drug holidays rather than missing occasional doses. CONCLUSION: The analysis provided evidence about the inconsistencies between different monitoring strategies and adherence measures. Furthermore, the analysis highlighted the difficulties in collecting complete data for studies investigating chronic, slowly progressive conditions that require long-term follow-up. Future adherence studies could use multiple methods for quantifying and classifying adherence in parallel, both to maximise precision of adherence estimates and to facilitate comparison between studies. However, the authors are cautious of the effect of using multiple adherence measures on participant behaviour and their potential reactivity effects is an area for future research.

Adherence to UK national guidance for discharge information: an audit in primary care.

AIMS: Poor communication of clinical information between healthcare settings is associated with patient harm. In 2008, the UK National Prescribing Centre (NPC) issued guidance regarding the minimum information to be communicated upon hospital discharge. This study evaluates the extent of adherence to this guidance and identifies predictors of adherence. METHODS: This was an audit of discharge summaries received by medical practices in one UK primary care trust of patients hospitalized for 24 h or longer. Each discharge summary was scored against the applicable NPC criteria which were organized into: 'patient, admission and discharge', 'medicine' and 'therapy change' information. RESULTS: Of 3444 discharge summaries audited, 2421 (70.3%) were from two teaching hospitals and 906 (26.3%) from three district hospitals. Unplanned admissions accounted for 2168 (63.0%) of the audit sample and 74.6% (2570) of discharge summaries were electronic. Mean (95% CI) adherence to the total NPC minimum dataset was 71.7% [70.2, 73.2]. Adherence to patient, admission and discharge information was 77.3% (95% CI 77.0, 77.7), 67.2% (95% CI 66.3, 68.2) for medicine information and 48.9% (95% CI 47.5, 50.3) for therapy change information. Allergy status, co-morbidities, medication history and rationale for therapy change were the most frequent omissions. Predictors of adherence included quality of the discharge template, electronic discharge summaries and smaller numbers of prescribed medicines. CONCLUSIONS: Despite clear guidance regarding the content of discharge information, omissions are frequent. Adherence to the NPC minimum dataset might be improved by using comprehensive electronic discharge templates and implementation of effective medicines reconciliation at both sides of the health interface.

Improving adherence to glaucoma medication: a randomised controlled trial of a patient-centred intervention (The Norwich Adherence Glaucoma Study).

BACKGROUND: Improving adherence to ocular hypertension (OH)/glaucoma therapy is highly likely to prevent or reduce progression of optic nerve damage. The present study used a behaviour change counselling intervention to determine whether education and support was beneficial and cost-effective in improving adherence with glaucoma therapy. METHODS: A randomised controlled trial with a 13-month recruitment and 8-month follow-up period was conducted. Patients with OH/glaucoma attending a glaucoma clinic and starting treatment with travoprost were approached. Participants were randomised into two groups and adherence was measured over 8 months, using an electronic monitoring device (Travalert® dosing aid, TDA). The control group received standard clinical care, and the intervention group received a novel glaucoma education and motivational support package using behaviour change counselling. Cost-effectiveness framework analysis was used to estimate any potential cost benefit of improving adherence. RESULTS: Two hundred and eight patients were recruited (102 intervention, 106 control). No significant difference in mean adherence over the monitoring period was identified with 77.2% (CI, 73.0, 81.4) for the control group and 74.8% (CI, 69.7, 79.9) for the intervention group (p = 0.47). Similarly, there was no significant difference in percentage intraocular pressure reduction; 27.6% (CI, 23.5, 31.7) for the control group and 25.3% (CI, 21.06, 29.54) for the intervention group (p = 0.45). Participants in the intervention group were more satisfied with information about glaucoma medication with a mean score of 14.47/17 (CI, 13.85, 15.0) compared with control group which was 8.51 (CI, 7.72, 9.30). The mean intervention cost per patient was GB£10.35 (

Developing a core outcome set for evaluating medication adherence interventions for adults prescribed long-term medication in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Approximately half of people prescribed medications do not take them as prescribed. There is a significant unmet need regarding the barriers to medication adherence not being addressed in primary care. There is no agreement on which outcomes should be measured and reported in trials of medication adherence interventions. OBJECTIVE: To develop a core outcome set (COS) for trials of medication adherence interventions in primary care for adults prescribed medications for long-term health conditions. METHODS: A list of potentially relevant outcomes from the literature was developed. Using a two-round Delphi survey of stakeholder groups representing patients and their carers; primary care staff; and academic researchers with an interest in medication adherence; each outcome was scored in terms of importance for determining the effectiveness of medication adherence interventions in primary care. This was followed by two consensus workshops, where importance, as well as feasibility and acceptability of measurement, were considered in order to finalise the COS. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty people took part in Delphi Round 1 and 101 took part in Round 2. Eight people attended the workshops (four attendees per workshop). Seven outcomes were identified as most important, feasible and acceptable to collect in medication adherence trials: Health-related quality of life, number of doses taken, persistence with medicines, starting (initiating) a medicine, relevance of the medication adherence intervention for an individual, mortality, and adverse medicine events. CONCLUSIONS: This COS represents the minimum outcomes that should be collected and reported in all medication adherence trials undertaken in primary care. When developing and finalizing the COS, feasibility and acceptability of collection of outcomes has been considered. In addition to the COS, medication adherence trials can choose to include outcomes to suit their specific context such as the health condition associated with their medication adherence intervention.

Do older patients find multi-compartment medication devices easy to use and which are the easiest?

BACKGROUND: multi-compartment medication devices (MMDs) are widely used, primarily by older people, to aid correct-medication taking. Several MMD types are available yet little is known about the ease with which patients with varying functional ability use these devices and whether some types are easier than others. Such knowledge would assist healthcare practitioners in advising patients on a suitable choice of device. OBJECTIVE: this study investigates the ease with which patients with differing functional ability use three types of MMD. METHOD: participants were recruited from an older person's medical ward. Demographic and medication information, cognitive function, visual acuity and manual dexterity were recorded. The Venalink®, Nomad Clear® and Dosett® MMDs were tested. Participants rated each MMD according to text readability, ease of opening, ease of medication removal, transportability and overall rating. These ratings were compared between MMDs for all patients and for subgroups with differing functional abilities. RESULTS: the MMDs were trialled by 50 patients; the majority rated text readability well but rated MMDs poorly according to the other criteria. Cognitively impaired participants may encounter difficulties in opening and removing medication from Venalink® and Nomad®. The Dosett® consistently rated better across all criteria. Transportability was the most influential criterion for overall MMD usability. CONCLUSION: the poor patient rating of MMDs which are widely used in practice is of concern. Some MMDs may be difficult to open and access, especially for patients with cognitive impairment. This offers some guidance to health professionals in advising patients on MMD choice however, overall MMD rating appears dominated by transportability.

Understanding how primary care practitioners can be supported to recognise, screen and initially diagnose oropharyngeal dysphagia: protocol for a behavioural science realist review.

INTRODUCTION: Oropharyngeal dysphagia (OD) affects around 15% of older people; however, it is often unrecognised and underdiagnosed until patients are hospitalised. Screening is an important process which aims to facilitate proactive assessment, diagnosis and management of health conditions. Healthcare systems do not routinely screen for OD in older people, and healthcare professionals (HCPs) are largely unaware of the need to screen. This realist review aims to identify relevant literature and develop programme theories to understand what works, for whom, under what circumstances and how, to facilitate primary care HCPs to recognise, screen and initially diagnose OD. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will follow five steps for undertaking a realist review: (1) clarify the scope, (2) literature search, (3) appraise and extract data, (4) evidence synthesis and (5) evaluation. Initial programme theories (IPTs) will be constructed after the preliminary literature search, informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework and with input from a stakeholder group. We will search Medline, Google Scholar, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, Scopus and PsycINFO databases. We will obtain additional evidence through grey literature, snowball sampling, lateral searching and consulting the stakeholder group. Literature will be screened, evaluated and synthesised in Covidence. Evidence will be assessed for quality by evaluating its relevance and rigour. Data will be extracted and synthesised according to their relation to IPTs. We will follow the Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards quality and publication standards to report study results. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Formal ethical approval is not required for this review. We will disseminate this research through publication in a peer-reviewed journal, written pieces targeted to diverse groups of HCPs on selected online platforms and public engagement events. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022320327.

Co-design of a behaviour change intervention to equip geriatricians and pharmacists to proactively deprescribe medicines that are no longer needed or are risky to continue in hospital.

BACKGROUND: Trials of hospital deprescribing interventions have demonstrated limited changes in practitioner behaviour. Our previous research characterised four barriers and one enabler to geriatricians and pharmacists deprescribing in hospital that require addressing by a behaviour change intervention. Six behaviour change techniques (BCTs) have also been selected by the target audience using the hospital Deprescribing Implementation Framework (hDIF). This research aimed to co-design and operationalise the content, mode of delivery and duration/intensity of the six selected BCTs to develop the CompreHensive geriAtRician-led MEdication Review (CHARMER) deprescribing intervention. METHODS: We established co-design panels at three hospitals representing contextual factors likely to influence CHARMER implementation. Panels comprised geriatricians, pharmacists and other hospital staff likely to be involved in implementation. We convened two rounds of co-design workshops with each hospital to design a prototype for each BCT, which went for feedback at a final workshop attended by all three hospital panels. RESULTS: The six BCTs were co-designed into an intervention comprising:(1&2) Pharmacists' workshop with pros and cons of deprescribing activities, and videos of salient patient cases3 Regular geriatrician and pharmacist deprescribing briefings4 Videos of geriatricians navigating challenging deprescribing consultations5 Hospital deprescribing action plan6 Dashboard to benchmark deprescribing activitiesAutomated prompts to flag high-risk patients for deprescribing and a primary and secondary care deprescribing forum were proposed as additional BCTs by stakeholders. These were later excluded as they were not fidelitous to the theoretical determinants of geriatricians' and pharmacists' deprescribing behaviours. CONCLUSIONS: This study illustrates the integration of theory and co-design methodology with the target audience and staff likely to be involved in implementation of a hospital deprescribing behaviour change intervention. The development of an intervention that remains faithful to the underpinning mechanisms of action of behaviour change is a strength of this approach.

Validation of the Identification of Medication Adherence Barriers Questionnaire (IMAB-Q); a Behavioural Science-Underpinned Tool for Identifying Non-Adherence and Diagnosing an Individual's Barriers to Adherence.

Purpose: To validate the Identification of Medication Adherence Barriers Questionnaire (IMAB-Q) as a tool to guide practitioners to identify patients who require support to take their medicines as prescribed, their key barriers to adherence and select relevant behaviour change techniques. Patients and Methods: Adults prescribed medication for cardiovascular disease prevention were recruited from nine community pharmacies in England. Participants completed the IMAB-Q comprising 30 items representing potential barriers to adherence developed from our previous mixed methods study (scoping review and focus groups) underpinned by the Theoretical Domains Framework. Participants also self-reported their adherence on a visual analogue scale (VAS) ranging from perfect adherence (100) to non-adherence (1). A subgroup of 30 participants completed the IMAB-Q twice to investigate test-retest reliability using weighted Kappa. Mokken scaling was used to investigate IMAB-Q structure. Spearman correlation was used to investigate IMAB-Q criterion validity compared to the VAS score. Results: From 1407 invitations, 608 valid responses were received. Respondents had a mean (SD) age of 70.12 (9.9) years and were prescribed a median (IQ) 4 (3, 6) medicines. Worry about unwanted effects (n = 212, 34.5%) and negative emotions evoked by medicine taking (n = 99, 16.1%) were most frequently reported. Mokken scaling did not organise related IMAB-Q items according to the TDF domains (scalability coefficient H = 0.3 to 0.6). Lower VAS self-reported adherence correlated with greater IMAB-Q reported barriers (rho = -0.14, p = 0.001). Test-retest reliability of IMAB-Q items ranged from kappa co-efficient 0.9 to 0.3 (p < 0.05). Conclusion: The IMAB-Q is valid and reliable for identifying people not adhering and their barriers to adherence. Each IMAB-Q item is linked to a TDF domain which in turn is linked to relevant behaviour change techniques. The IMAB-Q can therefore guide patients and practitioners to select strategies tailored to a patient's identified barriers.

CompreHensive geriAtRician-led MEdication Review (CHARMER): protocol for a feasibility study of a hospital deprescribing behaviour change intervention.

INTRODUCTION: Over 50% of older adults are prescribed a medicine where the risk of harm outweighs the chances of benefit. During a hospital admission, older adults and carers expect medicines to be reviewed for appropriateness and any inappropriate medicines proactively deprescribed. While the principle of proactive deprescribing is an expectation of good prescribing practice, it is yet to become routine. The CompreHensive geriAtRician-led MEdication Review (CHARMER) study aims to develop and test a five-component behaviour change intervention to equip geriatricians and pharmacists to proactively deprescribe inappropriate medicines with older adults in hospital. This study aims to test the feasibility and acceptability of study processes and CHARMER implementation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A two-arm purposive allocation feasibility study is being undertaken at four acute hospitals in England, UK (three intervention and one control). The target sample is 400 patients across all hospitals. Primary outcome measures are: (1) participant recruitment rate and (2) participant attrition rate. Secondary outcome measures are: (1) hospital readmission rate; (2) mortality rate and (3) quality of life. Quantitative data will be checked for completeness and quality, and practitioner and patient demographics descriptively analysed. We will undertake a rapid qualitative analysis on observations, interviews and study meeting minutes data. A subsequent thematic analysis will be undertaken with codes mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework and Normalisation Process Theory. Triangulation of qualitative and quantitative data will be undertaken. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was obtained from Wales Research Ethics Committee 1 (IRAS ID 312494) and study approval from the Health Research Authority (22/WA/0087). Informed consent will be sought from all hospital staff involved in data collection activities and for patients involved in enhanced data collection activities. The findings of this study will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN11899506.

Protocol for a randomised controlled trial to estimate the effects and costs of a patient centred educational intervention in glaucoma management.

BACKGROUND: Poor glaucoma education is thought to be a causative factor of non-adherence to glaucoma therapy. However, the multi-factorial nature of non-adherent behaviour may explain the failure of purely educational interventions to achieve significant improvement in adherence. Behaviour Change Counselling (BCC) allows both the imparting of information and assessment of patient ambivalence to medication use and may elicit behaviour change in order to achieve better adherence. The chronic and complex nature of glaucoma means that patient non-adherence to glaucoma therapy does not easily correlate with measureable objective clinical endpoints. However, electronic medication monitoring offers an objective method of measuring adherence without reliance on clinical endpoints. METHODS/DESIGN: The study is a randomised controlled trial (RCT) with glaucoma (open angle) or ocular hypertension patients attending a glaucoma clinic and prescribed travoprost. The study will determine whether additional glaucoma education using BCC is beneficial and cost effective in improving adherence with glaucoma therapy. An 8-month follow-up period, using an electronic adherence monitoring device (Travalert dosing aid, TDA), will indicate if the intervention is likely to be sustained in the longer term. Additionally, a cost-effectiveness framework will be used to estimate the cost benefit of improving adherence. The development of a novel intervention to deliver glaucoma education using BCC required practitioner training and fidelity testing. Five practitioners were successfully trained to become Glaucoma Support Assistants able to deliver the BCC intervention. The research group had prior clinical and investigative experience in this setting, and used multiple strategies to design a method to address the study objectives. DISCUSSION: This RCT, using BCC to improve adherence to ocular hypotensive therapy, to our knowledge is the first within this disease area. Using a variety of adherence measures allows examination of the known inaccuracies of patient self-report with respect to glaucoma medication. The novel BCC component has undergone fidelity testing using BECCI and the BCC template will ensure conformity to a standardised intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials: ISRCTN89683704.

Capecitabine non-adherence: exploration of magnitude, nature and contributing factors.

OBJECTIVES: The prescribing of oral chemotherapy agents previously available only in the intravenous formulation, such as capecitabine, has afforded many benefits including reduced administration costs and improved patient acceptability. However, it has introduced the new challenge of ensuring patient adherence to therapy. It is therefore necessary to quantify adherence, and with a view to improving services, explore factors that may impact on medication taking behavior. METHODS: Patients with a diagnosis of breast or colorectal cancer and prescribed capecitabine were recruited from a UK teaching hospital. Data regarding self-reported adherence, beliefs about medicines, side effects, and satisfaction with information received about capecitabine were recorded. RESULTS: Non-adherence was reported by 23.3% of the 43 participants. Capecitabine therapy was perceived necessary by 97.6%, but almost one-third of participants had strong concerns. Side effects were reported by 80% of participants, with Palmar-Plantar erythrodysesthesia and fatigue most troubling participants. Complete satisfaction with information received was reported by 65% of participants; however, dissatisfaction about how to tell if capecitabine is working and the proposed duration of therapy was expressed by 42.9% and 37.3% of participants, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to capecitabine is high with a strong conviction that the therapy is necessary. However, concerns were expressed regarding the experience of side effects. Patients have unmet information needs regarding the processes involved with monitoring capecitabine efficacy and determination of therapy duration. Healthcare professionals may therefore wish to consider a greater focus on involving patients in the monitoring of their care with respect to efficacy and planned treatment schedules.