The knowledge, attitudes and beliefs of patients and their healthcare professionals around oral dosage form modification: a systematic review of the qualitative literature

Objectives: The objective of this systematic review was to synthesize the available qualitative evidence on the knowledge, attitudes and beliefs of adult patients, healthcare professionals and carers about oral dosage form modification. Design: A systematic review and synthesis of qualitative studies was undertaken, utilising the thematic synthesis approach. Data sources: The following databases were searched from inception to September 2015: PubMed, Medline (EBSCO), EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, ProQuest Databases, Scopus, Turning Research Into Practice (TRIP), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR). Citation tracking and searching the references lists of included studies was also undertaken. Grey literature was searched using the OpenGrey database, internet searching and personal knowledge. An updated search was undertaken in June 2016. Review methods: Studies meeting the following criteria were eligible for inclusion; (i) used qualitative data collection and analysis methods; (ii) full-text was available in English; (iii) included adult patients who require oral dosage forms to be modified to meet their needs or; (iv) carers or healthcare professionals of patients who require oral dosage forms to be modified. Two reviewers independently appraised the quality of the included studies using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Checklist. A thematic synthesis was conducted and analytical themes were generated. Results: Of 5455 records screened, seven studies were eligible for inclusion; three involved healthcare professionals and the remaining four studies involved patients. Four analytical themes emerged from the thematic synthesis: (i) patient-centred individuality and variability; (ii) communication; (iii) knowledge and uncertainty and; (iv) complexity. The variability of individual patient’s requirements, poor communication practices and lack of knowledge about oral dosage form modification, when combined with the complex and multi-faceted healthcare environment complicate decision making regarding oral dosage form modification and administration. Conclusions: This systematic review has highlighted the key factors influencing the knowledge, attitudes and beliefs of patients and healthcare professionals about oral dosage form modifications. The findings suggest that in order to optimise oral medicine modification practices the needs of individual patients should be routinely and systematically assessed and decision-making should be supported by evidence based recommendations with multidisciplinary input. Further research is needed to optimise oral dosage form modification practices and the factors identified in this review should be considered in the development of future interventions.

Effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions to prevent falls in older people: a systematic overview. The SENATOR Project ONTOP Series

Background: Falls are common events in older people, which cause considerable morbidity and mortality. Non-pharmacological interventions are an important approach to prevent falls. There are a large number of systematic reviews of non-pharmacological interventions, whose evidence needs to be synthesized in order to facilitate evidence-based clinical decision making. Objectives: To systematically examine reviews and meta-analyses that evaluated non-pharmacological interventions to prevent falls in older adults in the community, care facilities and hospitals. Methods: We searched the electronic databases Pubmed, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PEDRO and TRIP from January 2009 to March 2015, for systematic reviews that included at least one comparative study, evaluating any non-pharmacological intervention, to prevent falls amongst older adults. The quality of the reviews was assessed using AMSTAR and ProFaNE taxonomy was used to organize the interventions. Results: Fifty-nine systematic reviews were identified which consisted of single, multiple and multi-factorial non-pharmacological interventions to prevent falls in older people. The most frequent ProFaNE defined interventions were exercises either alone or combined with other interventions, followed by environment/assistive technology interventions comprising environmental modifications, assistive and protective aids, staff education and vision assessment/correction. Knowledge was the third principle class of interventions as patient education. Exercise and multifactorial interventions were the most effective treatments to reduce falls in older adults, although not all types of exercise were equally effective in all subjects and in all settings. Effective exercise programs combined balance and strength training. Reviews with a higher AMSTAR score were more likely to contain more primary studies, to be updated and to perform meta-analysis. Conclusions: The aim of this overview of reviews of non-pharmacological interventions to prevent falls in older people in different settings, is to support clinicians and other healthcare workers with clinical decision-making by providing a comprehensive perspective of findings.

Time-limited home-care reablement services for maintaining and improving the functional independence of older adults

Background: Reablement, also known as restorative care, is one possible approach to home-care services for older adults at risk of functional decline. Unlike traditional home-care services, reablement is frequently time-limited (usually six to 12 weeks) and aims to maximise independence by offering an intensive multidisciplinary, person-centred and goal-directed intervention. Objectives: To assess the effects of time-limited home-care reablement services (up to 12 weeks) for maintaining and improving the functional independence of older adults (aged 65 years or more) when compared to usual home-care or wait-list control group. Search methods: We searched the following databases with no language restrictions during April to June 2015: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE (OvidSP); Embase (OvidSP); PsycINFO (OvidSP); ERIC; Sociological Abstracts; ProQuest Dissertations and Theses; CINAHL (EBSCOhost); SIGLE (OpenGrey); AgeLine and Social Care Online. We also searched the reference lists of relevant studies and reviews as well as contacting authors in the field. Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster randomised or quasi-randomised trials of time-limited reablement services for older adults (aged 65 years or more) delivered in their home; and incorporated a usual home-care or wait-list control group. Data collection and analysis: Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, assessed the risk of bias of individual studies and considered quality of the evidence using GRADE. We contacted study authors for additional information where needed. Main results: Two studies, comparing reablement with usual home-care services with 811 participants, met our eligibility criteria for inclusion; we also identified three potentially eligible studies, but findings were not yet available. One included study was conducted in Western Australia with 750 participants (mean age 82.29 years). The second study was conducted in Norway (61 participants; mean age 79 years). We are very uncertain as to the effects of reablement compared with usual care as the evidence was of very low quality for all of the outcomes reported. The main findings were as follows. Functional status: very low quality evidence suggested that reablement may be slightly more effective than usual care in improving function at nine to 12 months (lower scores reflect greater independence; standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.30; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.53 to -0.06; 2 studies with 249 participants). Adverse events: reablement may make little or no difference to mortality at 12 months' follow-up (RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.74 to 1.29; 2 studies with 811 participants) or rates of unplanned hospital admission at 24 months (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.85 to 1.03; 1 study with 750 participants). The very low quality evidence also means we are uncertain whether reablement may influence quality of life (SMD -0.23; 95% CI -0.48 to 0.02; 2 trials with 249 participants) or living arrangements (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.34; 1 study with 750 participants) at time points up to 12 months. People receiving reablement may be slightly less likely to have been approved for a higher level of personal care than people receiving usual care over the 24 months' follow-up (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; 1 trial, 750 participants). Similarly, although there may be a small reduction in total aggregated home and healthcare costs over the 24-month follow-up (reablement: AUD 19,888; usual care: AUD 22,757; 1 trial with 750 participants), we are uncertain about the size and importance of these effects as the results were based on very low quality evidence. Neither study reported user satisfaction with the service. Authors' conclusions: There is considerable uncertainty regarding the effects of reablement as the evidence was of very low quality according to our GRADE ratings. Therefore, the effectiveness of reablement services cannot be supported or refuted until more robust evidence becomes available. There is an urgent need for high quality trials across different health and social care systems due to the increasingly high profile of reablement services in policy and practice in several countries.