A qualitative study into the experience of living with acalculia after stroke and other forms of acquired brain injury.

Acalculia, an acquired disability following a brain injury, involves difficulty processing numerical information and/or calculations. Acalculia is not routinely screened for, and as a result there is a lack of understanding about the nature and prevalence and the impact of the condition. This qualitative study was initiated by stroke survivors with a strong interest in acalculia. Sixteen stroke/brain injury survivors with acalculia and seven carers were interviewed using semi-structured online interviews. Participants ranged in age, gender, time post-onset, country of residence and numeracy level prior to brain injury. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. Three main themes were identified: Awareness and Diagnosis; Emotional and Practical Impact (independence); Support, Coping Strategies and Self-training. Participants and carers repeatedly referred to the lack of awareness and treatment for acalculia and the impact acalculia has had on their lives and independence. Practical impacts included managing money, making appointments, using timetables, organizing social activities and employment, and managing medication. Our results highlight the urgent need to develop suitable assessments and interventions for acalculia and the scope for this to be Patient, Carer and Public involvement (PCPI)-led. The data also reveal useful strategies and suggestions regarding effective timing, targets and approaches for intervention.

Optimizing a digital intervention for managing blood pressure in stroke patients using a diverse sample: Integrating the person-based approach and patient and public involvement.

BACKGROUND: Having a stroke or transient ischaemic attack increases the risk of a subsequent one, especially with high blood pressure (BP). Home-based BP management can be effective at maintaining optimal BP. OBJECTIVE: To describe the optimization of a digital intervention for stroke patients and the value of participant diversity, using the person-based approach (PBA) and integral patient and public involvement (PPI). SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Stroke patients recruited from primary care and community settings, and health-care professionals in primary care, in England and Ireland. DESIGN: Three linked qualitative studies conducted iteratively to develop an intervention using the PBA, with integral PPI. INTERVENTION: The BP: Together intervention, adapted from existing BP self-monitoring interventions, is delivered via mobile phone or web interface to support self-monitoring of BP at home. It alerts patients and their clinicians when a change in antihypertensive medication is needed. FINDINGS: Feedback from a diverse range of participants identified potential barriers, which were addressed to improve the intervention accessibility, feasibility and persuasiveness. Easy-to-read materials were developed to improve usability for patients with aphasia and lower literacy. The importance of including family members who support patient care was also highlighted. Feedback messages regarding medication change were refined to ensure usefulness for patients and clinicians. DISCUSSION: Input from PPI alongside qualitative research with a diverse study sample allowed the creation of a simple and equitable BP management intervention for stroke patients. PATIENT INVOLVEMENT: Two PPI co-investigators contributed to design, conduct of study, data interpretation and manuscript preparation; community PPI sessions informed early planning. Study participants were stroke patients and family members.

Effect of Antihypertensive Medication Reduction vs Usual Care on Short-term Blood Pressure Control in Patients With Hypertension Aged 80 Years and Older: The OPTIMISE Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Deprescribing of antihypertensive medications is recommended for some older patients with polypharmacy and multimorbidity when the benefits of continued treatment may not outweigh the harms. Objective: This study aimed to establish whether antihypertensive medication reduction is possible without significant changes in systolic blood pressure control or adverse events during 12-week follow-up. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Optimising Treatment for Mild Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly (OPTIMISE) study was a randomized, unblinded, noninferiority trial conducted in 69 primary care sites in England. Participants, whose primary care physician considered them appropriate for medication reduction, were aged 80 years and older, had systolic blood pressure lower than 150 mm Hg, and were receiving at least 2 antihypertensive medications were included. Participants enrolled between April 2017 and September 2018 and underwent follow-up until January 2019. Interventions: Participants were randomized (1:1 ratio) to a strategy of antihypertensive medication reduction (removal of 1 drug [intervention], n = 282) or usual care (control, n = 287), in which no medication changes were mandated. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was systolic blood pressure lower than 150 mm Hg at 12-week follow-up. The prespecified noninferiority margin was a relative risk (RR) of 0.90. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of participants maintaining medication reduction and differences in blood pressure, frailty, quality of life, adverse effects, and serious adverse events. Results: Among 569 patients randomized (mean age, 84.8 years; 276 [48.5%] women; median of 2 antihypertensive medications prescribed at baseline), 534 (93.8%) completed the trial. Overall, 229 (86.4%) patients in the intervention group and 236 (87.7%) patients in the control group had a systolic blood pressure lower than 150 mm Hg at 12 weeks (adjusted RR, 0.98 [97.5% 1-sided CI, 0.92 to ∞]). Of 7 prespecified secondary end points, 5 showed no significant difference. Medication reduction was sustained in 187 (66.3%) participants at 12 weeks. Mean change in systolic blood pressure was 3.4 mm Hg (95% CI, 1.1 to 5.8 mm Hg) higher in the intervention group compared with the control group. Twelve (4.3%) participants in the intervention group and 7 (2.4%) in the control group reported at least 1 serious adverse event (adjusted RR, 1.72 [95% CI, 0.7 to 4.3]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among older patients treated with multiple antihypertensive medications, a strategy of medication reduction, compared with usual care, was noninferior with regard to systolic blood pressure control at 12 weeks. The findings suggest antihypertensive medication reduction in some older patients with hypertension is not associated with substantial change in blood pressure control, although further research is needed to understand long-term clinical outcomes. Trial Registration: EudraCT Identifier: 2016-004236-38; ISRCTN identifier: 97503221.

Effect of antihypertensive deprescribing on hospitalisation and mortality: long-term follow-up of the OPTiMISE randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Deprescribing of antihypertensive medications is recommended for some older patients with low blood pressure and frailty. The OPTiMISE trial showed that this deprescribing can be achieved with no differences in blood pressure control at 3 months compared with usual care. We aimed to examine effects of deprescribing on longer-term hospitalisation and mortality. METHODS: This randomised controlled trial enrolled participants from 69 general practices across central and southern England. Participants aged 80 years or older, with systolic blood pressure less than 150 mm Hg and who were receiving two or more antihypertensive medications, were randomly assigned (1:1) to antihypertensive medication reduction (removal of one antihypertensive) or usual care. General practitioners and participants were aware of the treatment allocation following randomisation but individuals responsible for analysing the data were masked to the treatment allocation throughout the study. Participants were followed up via their primary and secondary care electronic health records at least 3 years after randomisation. The primary outcome was time to all-cause hospitalisation or mortality. Intention-to-treat analyses were done using Cox regression modelling. A per-protocol analysis of the primary outcome was also done, excluding participants from the intervention group who did not reduce treatment or who had medication reinstated during the initial trial 12-week follow-up period. This study is registered with the European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT2016-004236-38) and the ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN97503221). FINDINGS: Between March 20, 2017, and Sept 30, 2018, a total of 569 participants were randomly assigned. Of these, 564 (99%; intervention=280; control=284) were followed up for a median of 4·0 years (IQR 3·7-4·3). Participants had a mean age of 84·8 years (SD 3·4) at baseline and 273 (48%) were women. Medication reduction was sustained in 109 participants at follow-up (51% of the 213 participants alive in the intervention group). Participants in the intervention group had a larger reduction in antihypertensives than the control group (adjusted mean difference -0·35 drugs [95% CI -0·52 to -0·18]). Overall, 202 (72%) participants in the intervention group and 218 (77%) participants in the control group experienced hospitalisation or mortality during follow-up (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0·93 [95% CI 0·76 to 1·12]). There was some evidence that the proportion of participants experiencing the primary outcome in the per-protocol population was lower in the intervention group (aHR 0·80 [0·64 to 1·00]). INTERPRETATION: Half of participants sustained medication reduction with no evidence of an increase in all-cause hospitalisation or mortality. These findings suggest that an antihypertensive deprescribing intervention might be safe for people aged 80 years or older with controlled blood pressure taking two or more antihypertensives. FUNDING: British Heart Foundation and National Institute for Health and Care Research.

GPs' mindlines on deprescribing antihypertensives in older patients with multimorbidity: a qualitative study in English general practice.

BACKGROUND: Optimal management of hypertension in older patients with multimorbidity is a cornerstone of primary care practice. Despite emphasis on personalised approaches to treatment in older patients, there is little guidance on how to achieve medication reduction when GPs are concerned that possible risks outweigh potential benefits of treatment. Mindlines - tacit, internalised guidelines developed over time from multiple sources - may be of particular importance in such situations. AIM: To explore GPs' decision-making on deprescribing antihypertensives in patients with multimorbidity aged ≥80 years, drawing on the concept of mindlines. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative interview study set in English general practice. METHOD: Thematic analysis of face-to-face interviews with a sample of 15 GPs from seven practices in the East of England, using a chart-stimulated recall approach to explore approaches to treatment for older patients with multimorbidity with hypertension. RESULTS: GPs are typically confident making decisions to deprescribe antihypertensive medication in older patients with multimorbidity when prompted by a trigger, such as a fall or adverse drug event. GPs are less confident to attempt deprescribing in response to generalised concerns about polypharmacy, and work hard to make sense of multiple sources (including available evidence, shared experiential knowledge, and non-clinical factors) to guide decision-making. CONCLUSION: In the absence of a clear evidence base on when and how to attempt medication reduction in response to concerns about polypharmacy, GPs develop 'mindlines' over time through practicebased experience. These tacit approaches to making complex decisions are critical to developing confidence to attempt deprescribing and may be strengthened through reflective practice.

Medicines management at home during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study exploring the UK patient/carer perspective.

OBJECTIVES: To explore home medicine practices and safety for people shielding and/or over the age of 70 during the COVID-19 pandemic and to create guidance, from the patient/carer perspective, for enabling safe medicine practices for this population. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were carried out with 50 UK participants who were shielding and/or over the age of 70 and who used medicines for a long-term condition, using telephone or video conferencing. Participants were recruited through personal/professional networks and through patient/carer organisations. Participants were asked about their experiences of managing medicines during the pandemic and how this differed from previous practices. Data were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. KEY FINDINGS: Patients' and their families' experiences of managing medicines safely during the pandemic varied greatly. Analysis suggests that this was based on the patient's own agency, the functioning of their medicines system pre-pandemic and their relationships with family, friends, community networks and pharmacy staff. Medicine safety issues reported included omitted doses and less-effective formulations being used. Participants also described experiencing high levels of anxiety related to obtaining medicines, monitoring medicines and feeling at risk of contracting COVID-19 while accessing healthcare services for medicine-related issues. Effects of the pandemic on medicines adherence were reported to be positive by some and negative by others. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacy staff have a key role to play by establishing good relationships with patients and their families, working with prescribers to ensure medicines systems are as joined up as possible, and signposting to community networks that can help with medicines collection.

How can patient-held lists of medication enhance patient safety? A mixed-methods study with a focus on user experience.

BACKGROUND: Patients often carry medication lists to mitigate information loss across healthcare settings. We aimed to identify mechanisms by which these lists could be used to support safety, key supporting features, and barriers and facilitators to their use. METHODS: We used a mixed-methods design comprising two focus groups with patients and carers, 16 semistructured interviews with healthcare professionals, 60 semistructured interviews with people carrying medication lists, a quantitative features analysis of tools available for patients to record their medicines and usability testing of four tools. Findings were triangulated using thematic analysis. Distributed cognition for teamwork models were used as sensitising concepts. RESULTS: We identified a wide range of mechanisms through which carrying medication lists can improve medication safety. These included improving the accuracy of medicines reconciliation, allowing identification of potential drug interactions, facilitating communication about medicines, acting as an aide-mémoire to patients during appointments, allowing patients to check their medicines for errors and reminding patients to take and reorder their medicines. Different tools for recording medicines met different needs. Of 103 tools examined, none met the core needs of all users. A key barrier to use was lack of awareness by patients and carers that healthcare information systems can be fragmented, a key facilitator was encouragement from healthcare professionals. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that patients and healthcare professionals perceive patient-held medication lists to have a wide variety of benefits. Interventions are needed to raise awareness of the potential role of these lists in enhancing patient safety. Such interventions should empower patients and carers to identify a method that suits them best from a range of options and avoid a 'one size fits all' approach.

Generalizability of Blood Pressure Lowering Trials to Older Patients: Cross-Sectional Analysis.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Randomized controlled trials are used to inform clinical guidelines on the management of hypertension in older adults, but it is unclear to what extent these trials represent the general population attending routine clinical practice. This study aimed to define the proportion and characteristics of patients eligible for hypertension trials conducted in older people. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: A total of 24 general practices in England. PARTICIPANTS: Anonymized electronic health record data from all individuals aged 80 and older. MEASUREMENTS: Descriptive statistics were used to define the proportion and characteristics of patients eligible for two previous medication intensification trials (HYVET, SPRINT) and one medication reduction trial (OPTiMISE). A logistic regression model was constructed to estimate predictors of eligibility for each trial. RESULTS: Of 15,376 patients identified, 268 (1.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.5-2.0%), 5,290 (34.4%; 95%CI = 33.7-35.2%), and 3,940 (25.6%; 95%CI = 24.9-26.3%) were eligible for the HYVET, SPRINT, and OPTiMISE trials, respectively. Between 5.6% and 30.7% of exclusions from each trial were due to eligibility criteria excluding those with high or uncontrolled blood pressure. Frailty (odds ratio [OR] = .44; 95%CI = .36-.54 [OPTiMISE]), cardiovascular polypharmacy (OR = .61; 95%CI = .55-.68 [SPRINT]) and multimorbidity (OR = .72; 95%CI = .64-.82 [SPRINT]) were associated with a lower likelihood of being eligible for one or more of the trials. CONCLUSION: A possible unintended consequence of blood pressure criteria used by trials attempting to answer different primary questions is that for many older patients, no trial evidence exists to inform treatment decisions in routine practice. Caution should be exercised when applying results from existing trials to patients with frailty or multimorbidity.

Comments on: involving service users in the qualitative analysis of patient narratives to support healthcare quality improvement.

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY: Some previous researchers (Locock et al) have written about what may be the best way for public contributors to be involved in data analysis in research projects. Their experience has been that giving public contributors large amounts of text to read is not the best use of their time and experience. They have recommended that a better approach would be for a researcher to meet with a group of users at the start of analysis, to discuss what to look out for. However, as another patient group that has been involved in analysis, we think differently. The approach we used was to be more fully involved in the project over a longer time period. Analysis tasks were broken down into stages to make it easier for those taking part. We found that this allowed us to take part fully without placing too much burden on us. We found that our approach was workable and successful and see no reason why it could not be applied in other circumstances. ABSTRACT: In this journal, Locock et al. have suggested that service users should not be overburdened with large amounts of data, and that eliciting users' reflections on their experience at the start of analysis and using this as a guide to direct researcher attention during the remainder of the process may work better. As public contributors that have been involved in analysis we suggest an alternative approach in this brief letter, based on our own experiences.

Combining qualitative research with PPI: reflections on using the person-based approach for developing behavioural interventions.

BACKGROUND: The value and importance of qualitative research and Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) for developing complex health interventions is widely recognised. However, there is often confusion between the two, with researchers relying on just one of these approaches, rather than using the two alongside one another. METHODS: The Person-Based Approach (PBA) to developing health-related behaviour change interventions adapts and integrates methods from user-centred design and qualitative research. The PBA involves qualitative research at multiple stages of interventions to ensure they are acceptable, feasible, meaningful, and optimally engaging to the people who will use them. The qualitative research is carried out with research participants from a target population, who have no prior or continuing involvement in the wider research process and see the intervention from a fresh perspective. This enables in-depth understanding of the views and experiences of a wide range of target users and the contexts within which they engage with behavioural change.PPI in research is carried out with or by members of the public and is a key part of the research process. PPI contributors are involved at all stages of research design and interpretation. PPI provides input into interventions as members of the research team alongside other stakeholders, such as health professionals and behaviour change experts. RESULTS: We advocate using qualitative research alongside PPI at all stages of intervention planning, development, and evaluation. We illustrate this with examples from recent projects developing complex health interventions, highlighting examples where PPI and PBA have pulled in different directions and how we have approached this, how PPI have helped optimise interventions based on PBA feedback, and how we have engaged PPI in community settings. CONCLUSIONS: PPI provides a valuable alternative to the traditional researcher-led approaches, which can be poorly matched to the needs of target users. Combining PPI with the PBA can help to create optimally engaging interventions by incorporating a greater diversity of feedback than would have been possible to achieve through PPI or qualitative approaches alone.

OPtimising Treatment for MIld Systolic hypertension in the Elderly (OPTiMISE): protocol for a randomised controlled non-inferiority trial.

INTRODUCTION: Recent evidence suggests that larger blood pressure reductions and multiple antihypertensive drugs may be harmful in older people, particularly frail individuals with polypharmacy and multimorbidity. However, there is a lack of evidence to support deprescribing of antihypertensives, which limits the practice of medication reduction in routine clinical care. The aim of this trial is to examine whether antihypertensive medication reduction is possible in older patients without significant changes in blood pressure control at follow-up. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This trial will use a primary care-based, open-label, randomised controlled trial design. A total of 540 participants will be recruited, aged ≥80 years, with systolic blood pressure <150 mm Hg and receiving ≥2 antihypertensive medications. Participants will have no compelling indication for medication continuation and will be considered to potentially benefit from medication reduction due to existing polypharmacy, comorbidity and frailty. Following a baseline appointment, individuals will be randomised to a strategy of medication reduction (intervention) with optional self-monitoring or usual care (control). Those in the intervention group will have one antihypertensive medication stopped. The primary outcome will be to determine if a reduction in medication can achieve a proportion of participants with clinically safe blood pressure levels at 12-week follow-up (defined as a systolic blood pressure <150 mm Hg), which is non-inferior (within 10%) to that achieved by the usual care group. Qualitative interviews will be used to understand the barriers and facilitators to medication reduction. The study will use economic modelling to predict the long-term effects of any observed changes in blood pressure and quality of life. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol, informed consent form, participant information sheet and all other participant facing material have been approved by the Research Ethics Committee (South Central-Oxford A; ref 16/SC/0628), Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (ref 21584/0371/001-0001), host institution(s) and Health Research Authority. All research outputs will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at national and international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: EudraCT 2016-004236-38; ISRCTN97503221; Pre-results.