Quality of life in a high-risk group of elderly primary care patients: characteristics and potential for improvement.

PURPOSE: Quality of Life (QoL) is associated with a bandwidth of lifestyle factors that can be subdivided into fixed and potentially modifiable ones. We know too little about the role of potentially modifiable factors in comparison to fixed ones. This study examines four aspects of QoL and its associations with 15 factors in a sample of elderly primary care patients with a high risk of dementia. The main objectives are (a) to determine the role of the factors in this particular group and (b) to assess the proportion of fixed and potentially modifiable factors. METHOD: A high-risk group of 1030 primary care patients aged between 60 and 77 years (52.1% females) were enrolled in "AgeWell.de," a cluster-randomized, controlled trial. This paper refers to the baseline data. The multi-component intervention targets to decrease the risk of dementia by optimization of associated lifestyle factors. 8 fixed and 7 modifiable factors potentially influencing QoL served as predictors in multiple linear regressions. RESULTS: The highest proportion of explained variance was found in psychological health and age-specific QoL. In comparison to health-related QoL and physical health, the modifiable predictors played a major role (corr. R2: 0.35/0.33 vs. 0.18), suggesting that they hold a greater potential for improving QoL. CONCLUSION: Social engagement, body weight, instrumental activities of daily living, and self-efficacy beliefs appeared as lifestyle factors eligible to be addressed in an intervention program for improving QoL. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register, reference number: DRKS00013555. Date of registration: 07.12.2017.

Task sharing in an interprofessional medication management program - a survey of general practitioners and community pharmacists.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacist-led medication review and medication management programs (MMP) are well-known strategies to improve medication safety and effectiveness. If performed interprofessionally, outcomes might even improve. However, little is known about task sharing in interprofessional MMP, in which general practitioners (GPs) and community pharmacists (CPs) collaboratively perform medication reviews and continuously follow-up on patients with designated medical and pharmaceutical tasks, respectively. In 2016, ARMIN (Arzneimittelinitiative Sachsen-Thüringen) an interprofessional MMP was launched in two German federal states, Saxony and Thuringia. The aim of this study was to understand how GPs and CPs share tasks in MMP when reviewing the patients' medication. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional postal survey among GPs and CPs who participated in the MMP. Participants were asked who completed which MMP tasks, e.g., checking drug-drug interactions, dosing, and side effects. In total, 15 MMP tasks were surveyed using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from "I complete this task alone" to "GP/CP completes this task alone". The study was conducted between 11/2020 and 04/2021. Data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: In total, 114/165 (69.1%) GPs and 166/243 (68.3%) CPs returned a questionnaire. The majority of GPs and CPs reported (i) checking clinical parameters and medication overuse and underuse to be completed by GPs, (ii) checking storage conditions of drugs and initial compilation of the patient's medication including brown bag review being mostly performed by CPs, and (iii) checking side-effects, non-adherence, and continuous updating of the medication list were carried out jointly. The responses differed most for problems with self-medication and adding and removing over-the-counter medicines from the medication list. In addition, the responses revealed that some MMP tasks were not sufficiently performed by either GPs or CPs. CONCLUSIONS: Both GPs' and CPs' expertise are needed to perform MMP as comprehensively as possible. Future studies should explore how GPs and CPs can complement each other in MMP most efficiently.

Association of mental demands in the workplace with cognitive function in older adults at increased risk for dementia.

OBJECTIVES: Growing evidence suggests a protective effect of high mental demands at work on cognitive function in later life. However, evidence on corresponding associations in older adults at increased risk for dementia is currently lacking. This study investigates the association between mental demands at work and cognitive functioning in the population of the AgeWell.de-trial. METHODS: Cross-sectional investigation of the association between global cognitive functioning (Montreal Cognitive Assessment) and mental demands at work in older individuals at increased risk for dementia (Cardiovascular Risk Factors, Aging, and Incidence of Dementia (CAIDE)score ≥ 9; n = 941, age: 60-77 years). Occupational information was matched to Occupational Information Network (O*NET)-descriptors. Associations between cognitive function and O*NET-indices executive, verbal and novelty were investigated using generalized linear models. RESULTS: Higher values of index verbal (b = .69, p = .002) were associated with better cognitive function when adjusting for covariates. No association was observed for indices executive (b = .37, p = .062) and novelty (b = .45, p = .119). Higher education, younger age, and employment were linked to better cognitive function, while preexisting medical conditions did not change the associations. Higher levels of depressive symptomatology were associated with worse cognitive function. CONCLUSIONS: Higher levels of verbal demands at work were associated with better cognitive function for older adults with increased dementia risk. This suggests an advantage for older persons in jobs with high mental demands even after retirement and despite prevalent risk factors. Longitudinal studies are warranted to confirm these results and evaluate the potential of workplaces to prevent cognitive decline through increased mental demands.

[Potential Benchmarks for Successful Interdisciplinary Collaboration Projects in Germany: A Systematic Review]. / Potentielle Erfolgsindikatoren für die Durchführung von Projekten zur Arzt-Apotheker-Zusammenarbeit ­ eine systematische Übersicht.

AIM OF THE STUDY: Collaboration between general practitioners and community pharmacists is essential to ensure safe and effective patient care. However, collaboration in primary care is not standardized and varies greatly. This review aims to highlight projects about professional collaboration in ambulatory care in Germany and identifies promising approaches and successful benchmarks that should be considered for future projects. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed based on the PRISMA guidelines to identify articles focusing on professional collaboration between general practitioners and pharmacists. RESULTS: A total of 542 articles were retrieved. Six potential premises for successful cooperation projects were identified: GP and CP knowing each other (I), involvement of both health care providers in the project planning (II), sharing of experience or concerns during regular joint meetings enabling continuing evaluation and adaption (III), ensuring (technical) feasibility (IV), particularly by providing incentives (V), and by integrating these projects into existing health care structures (VI). CONCLUSION: Only few studies have been published in scientific journals. There was no standardized assessment of how the participants perceived their collaboration and how it facilitates their daily work, even when the study aimed to evaluate GP-CP collaboration. Successful cooperation between GP and CP in daily routine care was often characterized by personal contact and longtime relationships. Therefore, collaborative teaching sessions at university might establish sympathy and mutual understanding right from the beginning. There is a strong need to establish standardized tools to evaluate collaboration in future projects and to enable comparability of different studies.

Mortality and Hospitalizations Among Patients Enrolled in an Interprofessional Medication Management Program.

BACKGROUND: Measures for improving medication safety in outpatient care are often complex and involve medication reviews. Over the period 2016-2022 (with a preceeding one-year pilot phase), an interprofessional medication management program- the Medicines Initiative Saxony-Thuringia (Arzneimittelinitiative Sachsen-Thüringen, ARMIN)-was implemented in two German federal states. More than 5000 patients received a medication review by the end of 2019 by a team composed of physicians and pharmacists and were provided with joint, continuous care thereafter. METHODS: In the framework of a retrospectively registered cohort study, the mortality and hospitalizations of this population (5033 patients) were studied using routine data from a statutory health insurer (observation period 2015-2019) and compared with those of a control group (10 039 patients) determined from the routine data by propensity score matching. Mortality was compared by survival analysis (Cox regression), and hospitalization rates were compared in terms of event probabilities within two years of enrollment in the medication management program. Robustness was tested in multiple sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Over the observation period, 9.3% of the ARMIN participants and 12.9% of persons in the control group died (hazard ratio of the adjusted Cox regression, 0.84; 95% confidence interval [0.76; 0.94], P = 0.001). In the first two years after inclusion, the ARMIN participants were hospitalized just as often as the persons in the control group (52.4% versus 53.4%; odds ratio from the adjusted model, 1.04 [0.96; 1.11], P = 0.347). The effects were consistent in sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: In this retrospective cohort study, participation in the ARMIN program was associated with a lower risk of death. Exploratory analyses provide clues to the potential origin of this association.

Attitudes of non-participating general practitioners and community pharmacists towards interprofessional medication management in primary care: an interview study.

BACKGROUND: Interprofessional medication management in primary care is a recognized strategy for improving medication safety, but it is poorly implemented in Germany. As a pilot project, ARMIN [Arzneimittelinitiative Sachsen-Thüringen] was initiated in 2014 to establish better interprofessional medication management between general practitioners and community pharmacists. AIM: The aim of this study was to explore the views of non-participating general practitioners and community pharmacists towards interprofessional medication management within ARMIN and to identify barriers to participation. METHOD: This was an interview study comprising a series of semi-structured telephone interviews. In total, 36 general practitioners and 15 community pharmacists were interviewed in the period between March and June 2020. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis as an inductive approach and the consolidated framework for implementation research as a deductive approach. RESULTS: Many general practitioners and community pharmacists had a generally positive attitude towards interprofessional medication management. However, various barriers were identified and categorized into five major themes: (I) collaboration between general practitioners and community pharmacists, e.g. concerning general practitioners' professional sovereignty and pharmacists' fear of jeopardizing their relationship with general practitioners when interfering in therapy; (II) eligibility for participation, e.g., the fact that patients had to be insured with a specific statutory health insurance fund; (III) local circumstances, e.g. many pharmacists could not find a collaborating general practitioner (and vice versa). Moreover, patient demand was low, probably because patients were not aware of the program; (IV) information technology, e.g. concerning the lack of available software and data security concerns; and (V) cost-benefit ratio, e.g. the fact that potential benefits were outweighed by program-associated costs. CONCLUSION: The perceived discrepancy between positive attitudes and multiple prevalent barriers indicates considerable potential for further interprofessional collaboration between general practitioners and community pharmacists.

Social Network and Participation in Elderly Primary Care Patients in Germany and Associations with Depressive Symptoms-A Cross-Sectional Analysis from the AgeWell.de Study.

This study aims to describe social network and social participation and to assess associations with depressive symptoms in older persons with increased risk for dementia in Germany. We conducted a cross-sectional observational study in primary care patients (aged 60−77) as part of a multicenter cluster-randomized controlled trial (AgeWell.de). We present descriptive and multivariate analyses for social networks (Lubben Social Network Scale and subscales) and social participation (item list of social activities) and analyze associations of these variables with depressive symptoms (Geriatric Depression Scale). Of 1030 included patients, 17.2% were at risk for social isolation (Lubben Social Network Scale < 12). Looking at the subscales, a reduced non-family network was found almost twice as often as a reduced family network. Patients with depressive symptoms had significantly smaller social networks than patients without depression (p < 0.001). They rather engaged in social activities of low involvement level or no weekly social activity at all (p < 0.001). The study shows associations of depressive symptoms with a decreased social network and less social participation in elderly participants. Sufficient non-family contacts and weekly social activities seem to play an important role in mental health and should be encouraged in elderly primary care patients.

Physical Activity Determinants in Older German Adults at Increased Dementia Risk with Multimorbidity: Baseline Results of the AgeWell.de Study.

Background: Multimorbidity is a common issue in aging societies and is usually associated with dementia in older people. Physical activity (PA) may be a beneficial nonpharmacological strategy for patients with complex health needs. However, insufficient PA is predominant in this population. Thus, there is an evident need to expand the knowledge on potential determinants influencing PA engagement among elderly persons at risk of dementia and multimorbidity. Methods: We used baseline data from the multicenter, cluster-randomized controlled AgeWell.de study. The main aim was to describe PA engagement and identify potential PA determinants in a sample of community-dwelling Germans aged 60−77 years old with an increased risk of dementia and multimorbidity. Results: Of the 1030 included participants, approximately half (51.8%) engaged in PA ≥2 times/week for at least 30 min at baseline. We identified self-efficacy (beta = 0.202, (p < 0.001) and BMI (beta = −0.055, (p < 0.001) as potential PA determinants. Conclusions: The identified determinants, self-efficacy, and BMI are consistent with those reported in the literature. Specific knowledge on PA determinants and stages of change in persons with risk of dementia and multimorbidity might guide the development of effective future prevention measures and health services tailored to this population. Trial registration: German Clinical Trials Register (reference number: DRKS00013555).

Recruitment and Baseline Characteristics of Participants in the AgeWell.de Study-A Pragmatic Cluster-Randomized Controlled Lifestyle Trial against Cognitive Decline.

Targeting dementia prevention, first trials addressing multiple modifiable risk factors showed promising results in at-risk populations. In Germany, AgeWell.de is the first large-scale initiative investigating the effectiveness of a multi-component lifestyle intervention against cognitive decline. We aimed to investigate the recruitment process and baseline characteristics of the AgeWell.de participants to gain an understanding of the at-risk population and who engages in the intervention. General practitioners across five study sites recruited participants (aged 60-77 years, Cardiovascular Risk Factors, Aging, and Incidence of Dementia/CAIDE dementia risk score ≥ 9). Structured face-to-face interviews were conducted with eligible participants, including neuropsychological assessments. We analyzed group differences between (1) eligible vs. non-eligible participants, (2) participants vs. non-participants, and (3) between intervention groups. Of 1176 eligible participants, 146 (12.5%) dropped out before baseline; the study population was thus 1030 individuals. Non-participants did not differ from participants in key sociodemographic factors and dementia risk. Study participants were M = 69.0 (SD = 4.9) years old, and 52.1% were women. The average Montreal Cognitive Assessment/MoCA score was 24.5 (SD = 3.1), indicating a rather mildly cognitively impaired study population; however, 39.4% scored ≥ 26, thus being cognitively unimpaired. The bandwidth of cognitive states bears the interesting potential for differential trial outcome analyses. However, trial conduction is impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, requiring adjustments to the study protocol with yet unclear methodological consequences.

Process of translation and cross-cultural adaptation of two Australian instruments to evaluate the physician-pharmacist collaboration in Germany.

BACKGROUND: Building interprofessional working relationships between physicians and pharmacists is essential to ensure high-quality patient care. To assess which factors influence the performance and success of their collaboration, validated instruments should be used, such as the Australian "Attitudes Toward Collaboration Instrument (ATCI)" and the "Frequency of Interprofessional Collaboration Instrument (FICI)". Both instruments were already translated in a previous German study, but not pretested for comprehensibility or cultural appropriateness to ensure that the target group is able to adequately answer the translated items. OBJECTIVES: To translate and particularly cross-culturally adapt two Australian instruments measuring physicians' and pharmacists' attitudes towards interprofessional collaboration and the frequency of their interactions for use in Germany. METHODS: The ATCI and FICI were translated following internationally recognised guidelines. Two-step cognitive interviewing was performed with physicians and pharmacists working in ambulatory care in Germany. The "Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research" were used to report this study. RESULTS: Overall, 2 forward and 2 back translations, and 38 cognitive interviews, i.e. cognitive probing (N = 10) and behaviour observation (N = 28), with 18 physicians and 20 pharmacists were performed. Experts discussed all potential changes. The ATCI and FICI were translated introducing 15 minor (e.g. paraphrasing, item order) and 6 major (e.g. 2 more items in FICI, additional response options) adaptations. The ATCI-P/GP-German and FICI-P/GP-German were found to be easy to answer and clearly-phrased. CONCLUSION: This study shows the importance of using recognised methods to translate and adapt questionnaires, consisting of at least four steps: forward translation, back translation, cognitive interviewing and finalisation (each reviewed by an expert panel making their decisions by consensus). A profoundly pretested German-speaking instrument is now available to evaluate and describe interprofessional collaboration between physicians and pharmacists. However, collecting further sociodemographic and contextual information seems necessary for enhanced interpretation of future results.

Interprofessional communication between community pharmacists and general practitioners: a qualitative study.

Background While collaboration between community pharmacists (CPs) and general practitioners (GPs) is essential to provide comprehensive patient care, their communication often is scarce and hampered by multiple barriers. Objective We aimed to assess both professions' perceptions of interprofessional communication with regard to content and methods of communication as a basis to subsequently develop best-practice recommendations for information exchange. Setting Ambulatory care setting in Germany. Method CPs and GPs shared their experience in focus groups and in-depth interviews which were conducted using a semi-structured interview guideline. Transcribed recordings were assessed using qualitative content analysis according to Mayring. Main outcome measure Specification of existing barriers, CPs'/GPs' general perceptions of interprofessional communication and similarities and differences regarding prioritization of specific information items and how to best communicate with each other. Results Four focus groups and fourteen interviews were conducted. Seven internal (e.g. professions were not personally known to one another) and nine external barriers (e.g. mutual accessibility) were identified. Ten organizational, eight medication-related, and four patient-related information items were identified requiring interprofessional communication. Their relevance varied between the professions, e.g. CPs rated organizational issues higher than GPs. Both professions indicated communication via phone to be the most frequently used method of communication. Conclusion CPs and GPs opinions often differ. However, communication between CPs and GPs is perceived as crucial suggesting that a future concept has to offer standardized recommendations, while leaving CPs and GPs room to adjust it to their individual needs.