Improving appropriate polypharmacy for older people in primary care: selecting components of an evidence-based intervention to target prescribing and dispensing.

Background
The use of multiple medicines (polypharmacy) is increasingly common in older people. Ensuring that patients receive the most appropriate combinations of medications (appropriate polypharmacy) is a significant challenge. The quality of evidence to support the effectiveness of interventions to improve appropriate polypharmacy is low. Systematic identification of mediators of behaviour change, using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), provides a theoretically robust evidence base to inform intervention design. This study aimed to (1) identify key theoretical domains that were perceived to influence the prescribing and dispensing of appropriate polypharmacy to older patients by general practitioners (GPs) and community pharmacists, and (2) map domains to associated behaviour change techniques (BCTs) to include as components of an intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy in older people in primary care.

Methods
Semi-structured interviews were conducted with members of each healthcare professional (HCP) group using tailored topic guides based on TDF version 1 (12 domains). Questions covering each domain explored HCPs’ perceptions of barriers and facilitators to ensuring the prescribing and dispensing of appropriate polypharmacy to older people. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data analysis involved the framework method and content analysis. Key domains were identified and mapped to BCTs based on established methods and discussion within the research team.

Results
Thirty HCPs were interviewed (15 GPs, 15 pharmacists). Eight key domains were identified, perceived to influence prescribing and dispensing of appropriate polypharmacy: ‘Skills’, ‘Beliefs about capabilities’, ‘Beliefs about consequences’, ‘Environmental context and resources’, ‘Memory, attention and decision processes’, ‘Social/professional role and identity’, ‘Social influences’ and ‘Behavioural regulation’. Following mapping, four BCTs were selected for inclusion in an intervention for GPs or pharmacists: ‘Action planning’, ‘Prompts/cues’, ‘Modelling or demonstrating of behaviour’ and ‘Salience of consequences’. An additional BCT (‘Social support or encouragement’) was selected for inclusion in a community pharmacy-based intervention in order to address barriers relating to interprofessional working that were encountered by pharmacists.

Conclusions
Selected BCTs will be operationalised in a theory-based intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy for older people, to be delivered in GP practice and community pharmacy settings. Future research will involve development and feasibility testing of this intervention.

HPV vaccine acceptance in males

Background Despite Human Papillomavirus (HPV)’s impact on the health of both sexes, there is debate around the inclusion of males in HPV vaccination programmes. The aim of this scoping review was to synthesize the evidence on vaccine acceptability to males. Given that the vaccine is most effective in adolescent males, vaccine acceptance in parents and health care professionals (HCPs) was also examined. Method A rapid synthesis using specified key words of published systematic reviews into vaccine acceptability in adolescent males, parents and HCPs was conducted. The most common electronic databases were searched including: Medline, EMBASE, PsychINFO, and CINAHL. Results There was variability amongst studies with respect to design and methodological approaches. Despite this there appears to be a positive attitude towards male HPV vaccination from both parents and older males. There is currently insufficient evidence on vaccine acceptance to adolescent males. Understanding the risks involved in HPV acquisition, and receiving a recommendation from a HCP, appear to be the major factors involved in males deciding to be vaccinated. Parents consistently report the importance of a HCP recommendation, yet HCPs (in the US) appear to have a preference for vaccinating older than younger adolescents, and for vaccinating females. Conclusions The absence of an agreed definition of vaccine acceptance leads to a lack of a universally accepted tool for its measurement. This makes comparison of studies difficult. With no established theoretical framework the identification and exploration of factors that influence vaccine uptake can be variable. In addition, acceptance is not indicative of uptake. The majority of studies are cross-sectional which makes the identification of factors that lead to actual vaccine uptake difficult. Prospective, longitudinal studies identifying individuals that acted on vaccine intention should be conducted to identify the factors that mediate the uptake.