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.

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.

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.

A Theory-Informed Systematic Review of Barriers and Enablers to Implementing Multi-Drug Pharmacogenomic Testing.

PGx testing requires a complex set of activities undertaken by practitioners and patients, resulting in varying implementation success. This systematic review aimed (PROSPERO: CRD42019150940) to identify barriers and enablers to practitioners and patients implementing pharmacogenomic testing. We followed PRISMA guidelines to conduct and report this review. Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and PubMed Central were systematically searched from inception to June 2022. The theoretical domain framework (TDF) guided the organisation and reporting of barriers or enablers relating to pharmacogenomic testing activities. From the twenty-five eligible reports, eleven activities were described relating to four implementation stages: ordering, facilitating, interpreting, and applying pharmacogenomic testing. Four themes were identified across the implementation stages: IT infrastructure, effort, rewards, and unknown territory. Barriers were most consistently mapped to TDF domains: memory, attention and decision-making processes, environmental context and resources, and belief about consequences.

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.

A personalised intervention programme aimed at improving adherence to oral antidiabetic and/or antihypertensive medication in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus, the INTENSE study: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Medication non-adherence is a prevalent health problem in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Interventions have previously been developed to improve medication adherence, but inconsistent outcomes have been reported. A potential explanation for this inconsistency is a 'one size fits all' approach, with interventions not tailored to the needs and preferences of individuals. Therefore, the aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of a personalised intervention programme aimed at improving adherence to oral antidiabetic and/or antihypertensive medication in people with T2DM. METHODS: A parallel-group randomised controlled trial will be conducted in 40-50 community pharmacies in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom (UK). A total of 300 participants will be included and followed up for a period of 6 months. Participants will be people with T2DM identified as non-adherent to oral antidiabetic and/or antihypertensive medication, aged 35-75 years and mobile phone users. The intervention group will receive a personalised intervention programme that is based on one or more of the participants' pre-defined non-adherence profile(s), namely (I) Knowledge and perceptions, (II) Practical problems, (III) Side effects and (IV) Negative mood and beliefs. The intervention comprises of one or more supporting modules, namely (I) Brief messaging, (II) Clinical medication review, (III) Medication schedule, (IV) Reminding messaging, (V) Medication dispensing systems, (VI) Smart messaging, (VII) Referral to general practitioner and (VIII) Unguided web-based Self Help Application for low mood. The control group will receive usual care including access to a publicly available informative diabetes website. The primary study outcome is medication adherence measured with a telephone pill count. Secondary outcomes are systolic blood pressure, HbA1c level, self-reported medication adherence, attitude and beliefs toward medication, satisfaction with diabetes treatment, health status and medical consumption and productivity cost. In addition, a process evaluation will be undertaken to establish the fidelity, reach and the extent to which intervention delivery is normalised in the daily practice of community pharmacy teams. DISCUSSION: The study can lead to a personalised intervention programme that improves medication adherence in people with T2DM that are non-adherent to oral antidiabetic and/or antihypertensive medication. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Register, Trial NL8747 , registered 02 July, 2020; ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN36009809 , registered 05 February, 2020.

Barriers and enablers to switching from a solid to a liquid formulation of Parkinson's medication: a theory-based mixed methods investigation.

BACKGROUND: Swallowing tablets/capsules can become difficult and dangerous for People with Parkinson's (PwP) who develop oropharyngeal dysphagia. Switching to a liquid delays the need for progressing to last line patches/injections. However, liquids are rarely used therefore a change in prescribing practice is warranted but, as with any change in behaviour, may be met with resistance. AIM: To characterise PwPs and carers' barriers and enablers (determinants) of switching from solid to liquid Parkinson's medication formulations. METHOD: Underpinned by the Theoretical Domains Framework, focus groups with PwPs and carers were convened to identify determinants of switching, which were then used to develop a questionnaire distributed across the UK. Determinants were prioritised if ≥ 50% of respondents agreed/strongly agreed that they were important to their decision to switch to a liquid formulation. Percentage precisions were reported as 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: From three focus groups and 131 questionnaires responses, PwPs and carers prioritised nine determinants. Three enablers had almost unanimous agreement: liquids' flexibility for incremental dosing (72% ± 8); decline in Parkinson's control (72% ± 8); prescriber's endorsement to switch (70% ± 8). The barriers: perception that tablets/capsules are easier to dose than liquids (72% ± 8); and prescriber's opposition to switching (70% ± 8), attracted similarly high agreement. CONCLUSION: There is a desire to switch to liquids when Parkinson's progresses and for their use beyond this to offer flexibility in dosing, a previously unrecognised indication for switching. The only notable resistance to switching may be addressed by innovations from the pharmaceutical industry to make liquids easier to measure.

Facilitating healthcare practitioners to deliver self-management support in adult cancer survivors: A realist review.

BACKGROUND: Supporting cancer survivors in self-management can empower them to take an active role in managing the long-term physical and psychosocial consequences of cancer treatment. Healthcare practitioners are key to supporting patients to self-manage, however, they do not routinely engage in these discussions. This review aimed to establish what works for whom and in what circumstances in relation to facilitating healthcare practitioners to provide self-management support in people living with long-term consequences of cancer treatment. METHODS: The review follows five steps: define the review's scope, develop initial programme theories, evidence search, selection and appraisal, and data extraction and synthesis. Database searches of Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, PsycINFO, ERIC and AMED databases, to September 2019 were supplemented with practitioner surveys. Insights into the mechanisms that operate in particular contexts to produce successful outcomes were illustrated using realist programme theories, developed using the Theoretical Domains Framework. Data selection was based on relevance and rigour. Data were extracted and synthesised iteratively to illuminate causal links between contexts, mechanisms and outcomes. RESULTS: Five programme theories were identified from 20 included articles and seven practitioner surveys: practitioners will engage patients in discussions about self-management if they have appropriate (1) knowledge and (2) consultations skills, (3) a clear understanding of their self-management support role and responsibilities, and if (4) organisational strategies and (5) health system configuration enable integration into routine care. The mechanisms facilitating practitioners to support self-management were practitioner confidence, mutual trust and shared responsibility between practitioners and cancer survivors, organisational prioritisation and ease of delivery of self-management support. CONCLUSION: The findings articulate the necessary components for embedding self-management support into routine cancer care. Operationalisation of these components into effective self-management support interventions will require reconfiguration of pathways and adaptation for local context, using strategies such as quality improvement and co-design to guide intervention development, implementation and evaluation.

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.

Barriers and facilitators to reducing anticholinergic burden: a qualitative systematic review.

Background Despite common use, anticholinergic medications have been associated with serious health risks. Interventions to reduce their use are being developed and there is a need to understand their implementation into clinical care. Aim of review This systematic review aims to identify and analyse qualitative research studies exploring the barriers and facilitators to reducing anticholinergic burden. Methods Medline (OVID), EMBASE (OVID), CINAHL (EMBSCO) and PsycINFO (OVID) were searched using comprehensive search terms. Peer reviewed studies published in English presenting qualitative research in relation to the barriers and facilitators of deprescribing anticholinergic medications, involving patients, carers or health professionals were eligible. Normalization Process Theory was used to explore and explain the data. Results Of 1764 identified studies, two were eligible and both involved healthcare professionals (23 general practitioners, 13 specialist clinicians and 12 pharmacists). No studies were identified that involved patients or carers. Barriers to collaborative working often resulted in poor motivation to reduce anticholinergic use. Low confidence, system resources and organisation of care also hindered anticholinergic burden reduction. Good communication and relationships with patients, carers and other healthcare professionals were reported as important for successful anticholinergic burden reduction. Having a named person for prescribing decisions, and clear role boundaries, were also important facilitators. Conclusions This review identified important barriers and facilitators to anticholinergic burden reduction from healthcare provider perspectives which can inform implementation of such deprescribing interventions. Studies exploring patient and carer perspectives are presently absent but are required to ensure person-centeredness and feasibility of future interventions.

Anticholinergic burden in older adult inpatients: patterns from admission to discharge and associations with hospital outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Anticholinergic medications are associated with adverse outcomes in older adults and should be prescribed cautiously. We describe the Anticholinergic Risk Scale (ARS) scores of older inpatients and associations with outcomes. METHODS: We included all emergency, first admissions of adults ⩾65 years old admitted to one hospital over 4 years. Demographics, discharge specialty, dementia/history of cognitive concern, illness acuity and medications were retrieved from electronic records. ARS scores were calculated as the sum of anticholinergic potential for each medication (0 = limited/none; 1 = moderate; 2 = strong and 3 = very strong). We categorised patients based on admission ARS score [ARS = 0 (reference); ARS = 1; ARS = 2; ARS ⩾ 3] and change in ARS score from admission to discharge [admission and discharge ARS = 0 (reference); same; decreased; increased]. We described anticholinergic prescribing patterns by discharge specialty and explored multivariable associations between ARS score categories and mortality using logistic regression [odds ratios (ORs), 95% confidence intervals (CIs)]. RESULTS: From 33,360 patients, 10,183 (31%) were prescribed an anticholinergic medication on admission. Mean admission ARS scores were: Cardiology and Stroke = 0.56; General Medicine = 0.78; Geriatric Medicine = 0.83; Other medicine = 0.81; Trauma and Orthopaedics = 0.66; Other Surgery = 0.65. Mean ARS did not increase from admission to discharge in any specialty but reductions varied significantly, from 4.6% (Other Surgery) to 27.7% (Geriatric Medicine) (p < 0.001). The odds of both 30-day inpatient and 30-day post-discharge mortality increased with admission ARS = 1 (OR = 1.21, 95% CI 1.01-1.44 and OR = 1.44, 1.18-1.74) but not with ARS = 2 or ARS ⩾ 3. The odds of 30-day post-discharge mortality were higher in all ARS change categories, relative to no anticholinergic exposure (same: OR = 1.45, 1.21-1.74, decreased: OR = 1.27, 1.01-1.57, increased: OR = 2.48, 1.98-3.08). CONCLUSION: The inconsistent dose-response associations with mortality may be due to confounding and measurement error which may be addressed by a prospective trial. Definitive evidence for this prevalent modifiable risk factor is required to support clinician behaviour-change, thus reducing variation in anticholinergic deprescribing by inpatient speciality. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: We describe how commonly medicines which block the chemical acetylcholine are prescribed to older adults admitted to hospital as an emergency and explore links between these medicines and death during or soon after hospital admission Backgroud: Medicines which block the chemical acetylcholine are commonly prescribed to treat symptoms such as itch and difficulty sleeping or to treat medical conditions such as depression. However, some studies in older adults have found potential links between these medicines and confusion and falls. Therefore, doctors are recommended to prescribe these drugs cautiously in adults aged 65 years and over.Methods: In our paper we use data collected as part of routine medical care at one university hospital to describe how often these medicines are prescribed in a large sample of older adults admitted to hospital as an emergency. We look at the medicines patients are prescribed on admission to the hospital and also when they are later discharged.Results: We find that these medicines are frequently prescribed. We also find that, in general, patients are prescribed fewer of these potentially harmful medicines on hospital discharge compared with hospital admission. This suggests that clinicians are aware of advice to prescribe acetylcholine blocking medicines cautiously and they are more often stopped in hospital than started. However, we find a lot of variation in practice depending on which hospital specialty was caring for the patient during their inpatient stay. We also find potential links with these medicines and death during the admission or soon after hospital discharge, but these potential links are not always consistent.Conclusion: Further study is needed to fully understand links between medicines that block acetylcholine and late life health. This will be important to reduce variation in prescribing practices.

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.

The feasibility of the PAM intervention to support treatment-adherence in people with hypertension in primary care: a randomised clinical controlled trial.

The PAM intervention is a behavioural intervention to support adherence to anti-hypertensive medications and therefore to lower blood pressure. This feasibility trial recruited 101 nonadherent patients (54% male, mean age 65.8 years) with hypertension and high blood pressure from nine general practices in the UK. The trial had 15.5% uptake and 7.9% attrition rate. Patients were randomly allocated to two groups: the intervention group (n = 61) received the PAM intervention as an adjunct to usual care; the control group (n = 40) received usual care only. At 3 months, biochemically validated medication adherence was improved by 20% (95% CI 3-36%) in the intervention than control, and systolic blood pressure was reduced by 9.16 mmHg (95% CI 5.69-12.64) in intervention than control. Improvements in medication adherence and reductions in blood pressure suggested potential intervention effectiveness. For a subsample of patients, improvements in medication adherence and reductions in full lipid profile (cholesterol 1.39 mmol/mol 95% CI 0.64-1.40) and in glycated haemoglobin (3.08 mmol/mol, 95% CI 0.42-5.73) favoured the intervention. A larger trial will obtain rigorous evidence about the potential clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the intervention.Trial registration Trial date of first registration 28/01/2019. ISRCTN74504989. https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN74504989 .

Barriers and facilitators to pharmacists integrating into the ward-based multidisciplinary team: A systematic review and meta-synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacists who are integrated into the ward team are involved in initial decision making, therefore pre-empting pharmaceutical problems and optimising therapy from the outset. Identifying the barriers and facilitators (determinants) to successful pharmacist integration within a multidisciplinary ward team will facilitate design of strategies to support integration. OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to identify the modifiable barriers and facilitators to pharmacist integration into the ward-based multidisciplinary team. METHOD: Searches were conducted in May 2018 across 5 databases: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsychINFO and ASSIA, combined with grey literature and manual searches. Qualitative and mixed-methods studies using a qualitative method of data collection and analysis were eligible if reporting at least 1 modifiable determinant. Framework synthesis using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) as the a priori coding framework was undertaken. Behaviour change techniques for addressing the identified determinants were selected. RESULTS: Twenty studies were included indicating 9 facilitators and 5 barriers to pharmacist integration. These were grouped into 3 themes. Professional knowledge and skills of the pharmacist were a facilitator to integration; interpersonal skills and relationships when representing positive interactions with team members were a facilitator whilst hierarchy was a barrier; working patterns were a facilitator when pharmacists were co-located with team members whilst profession-specific goals and excessive workload were barriers. These mapped to the TDF domains 'knowledge', 'social/professional role and identity', 'skills', 'reinforcement', 'social influence', 'goals', and 'environmental context and resources' respectively. CONCLUSION: The identified determinants within TDF domains and their associated behaviour change techniques now enable researchers to design theory- and evidence-based interventions to facilitate pharmacist integration into the ward-based multidisciplinary team. Pharmacist integration is facilitated by their knowledge and skills being valued and through demonstrating effective interpersonal skills. Re-structuring pharmacist responsibilities and working patterns to align with those of multidisciplinary team members also promotes integration.

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.

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.