Cargando…

HIOPP-6 – a pilot study on the evaluation of an electronic tool to assess and reduce the complexity of drug treatment considering patients’ views

BACKGROUND: A complex drug treatment might pose a barrier to safe and reliable drug administration for patients. Therefore, a novel tool automatically analyzes structured medication data for factors possibly contributing to complexity and subsequently personalizes the results by evaluating the relev...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wurmbach, Viktoria S., Schmidt, Steffen J., Lampert, Anette, Bernard, Simone, Meid, Andreas D., Frick, Eduard, Metzner, Michael, Wilm, Stefan, Mortsiefer, Achim, Bücker, Bettina, Altiner, Attila, Sparenberg, Lisa, Szecsenyi, Joachim, Peters-Klimm, Frank, Kaufmann-Kolle, Petra, Thürmann, Petra A., Seidling, Hanna M., Haefeli, Walter E.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9241250/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35764923
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12875-022-01757-0
_version_ 1784737761089028096
author Wurmbach, Viktoria S.
Schmidt, Steffen J.
Lampert, Anette
Bernard, Simone
Meid, Andreas D.
Frick, Eduard
Metzner, Michael
Wilm, Stefan
Mortsiefer, Achim
Bücker, Bettina
Altiner, Attila
Sparenberg, Lisa
Szecsenyi, Joachim
Peters-Klimm, Frank
Kaufmann-Kolle, Petra
Thürmann, Petra A.
Seidling, Hanna M.
Haefeli, Walter E.
author_facet Wurmbach, Viktoria S.
Schmidt, Steffen J.
Lampert, Anette
Bernard, Simone
Meid, Andreas D.
Frick, Eduard
Metzner, Michael
Wilm, Stefan
Mortsiefer, Achim
Bücker, Bettina
Altiner, Attila
Sparenberg, Lisa
Szecsenyi, Joachim
Peters-Klimm, Frank
Kaufmann-Kolle, Petra
Thürmann, Petra A.
Seidling, Hanna M.
Haefeli, Walter E.
author_sort Wurmbach, Viktoria S.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: A complex drug treatment might pose a barrier to safe and reliable drug administration for patients. Therefore, a novel tool automatically analyzes structured medication data for factors possibly contributing to complexity and subsequently personalizes the results by evaluating the relevance of each identified factor for the patient by means of key questions. Hence, tailor-made optimization measures can be proposed. METHODS: In this controlled, prospective, exploratory trial the tool was evaluated with nine general practitioners (GP) in three study groups: In the two intervention groups the tool was applied in a version with (G(I_with)) and a version without (G(I_without)) integrated key questions for the personalization of the analysis, while the control group (G(C)) did not use any tools (routine care). Four to eight weeks after application of the tool, the benefits of the optimization measures to reduce or mitigate complexity of drug treatment were evaluated from the patient perspective. RESULTS: A total of 126 patients regularly using more than five drugs could be included for analysis. GP suggested 117 optimization measures in G(I_with), 83 in G(I_without), and 2 in G(C). Patients in G(I_with) were more likely to rate an optimization measure as helpful than patients in G(I_without) (IRR: 3.5; 95% CI: 1.2—10.3). Thereby, the number of optimization measures recommended by the GP had no significant influence (P = 0.167). CONCLUSIONS: The study suggests that an automated analysis considering patient perspectives results in more helpful optimization measures than an automated analysis alone – a result which should be further assessed in confirmatory studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered retrospectively at the German Clinical Trials register under DRKS-ID DRKS00025257 (17/05/2021). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12875-022-01757-0.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9241250
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-92412502022-06-30 HIOPP-6 – a pilot study on the evaluation of an electronic tool to assess and reduce the complexity of drug treatment considering patients’ views Wurmbach, Viktoria S. Schmidt, Steffen J. Lampert, Anette Bernard, Simone Meid, Andreas D. Frick, Eduard Metzner, Michael Wilm, Stefan Mortsiefer, Achim Bücker, Bettina Altiner, Attila Sparenberg, Lisa Szecsenyi, Joachim Peters-Klimm, Frank Kaufmann-Kolle, Petra Thürmann, Petra A. Seidling, Hanna M. Haefeli, Walter E. BMC Prim Care Research BACKGROUND: A complex drug treatment might pose a barrier to safe and reliable drug administration for patients. Therefore, a novel tool automatically analyzes structured medication data for factors possibly contributing to complexity and subsequently personalizes the results by evaluating the relevance of each identified factor for the patient by means of key questions. Hence, tailor-made optimization measures can be proposed. METHODS: In this controlled, prospective, exploratory trial the tool was evaluated with nine general practitioners (GP) in three study groups: In the two intervention groups the tool was applied in a version with (G(I_with)) and a version without (G(I_without)) integrated key questions for the personalization of the analysis, while the control group (G(C)) did not use any tools (routine care). Four to eight weeks after application of the tool, the benefits of the optimization measures to reduce or mitigate complexity of drug treatment were evaluated from the patient perspective. RESULTS: A total of 126 patients regularly using more than five drugs could be included for analysis. GP suggested 117 optimization measures in G(I_with), 83 in G(I_without), and 2 in G(C). Patients in G(I_with) were more likely to rate an optimization measure as helpful than patients in G(I_without) (IRR: 3.5; 95% CI: 1.2—10.3). Thereby, the number of optimization measures recommended by the GP had no significant influence (P = 0.167). CONCLUSIONS: The study suggests that an automated analysis considering patient perspectives results in more helpful optimization measures than an automated analysis alone – a result which should be further assessed in confirmatory studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered retrospectively at the German Clinical Trials register under DRKS-ID DRKS00025257 (17/05/2021). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12875-022-01757-0. BioMed Central 2022-06-28 /pmc/articles/PMC9241250/ /pubmed/35764923 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12875-022-01757-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Wurmbach, Viktoria S.
Schmidt, Steffen J.
Lampert, Anette
Bernard, Simone
Meid, Andreas D.
Frick, Eduard
Metzner, Michael
Wilm, Stefan
Mortsiefer, Achim
Bücker, Bettina
Altiner, Attila
Sparenberg, Lisa
Szecsenyi, Joachim
Peters-Klimm, Frank
Kaufmann-Kolle, Petra
Thürmann, Petra A.
Seidling, Hanna M.
Haefeli, Walter E.
HIOPP-6 – a pilot study on the evaluation of an electronic tool to assess and reduce the complexity of drug treatment considering patients’ views
title HIOPP-6 – a pilot study on the evaluation of an electronic tool to assess and reduce the complexity of drug treatment considering patients’ views
title_full HIOPP-6 – a pilot study on the evaluation of an electronic tool to assess and reduce the complexity of drug treatment considering patients’ views
title_fullStr HIOPP-6 – a pilot study on the evaluation of an electronic tool to assess and reduce the complexity of drug treatment considering patients’ views
title_full_unstemmed HIOPP-6 – a pilot study on the evaluation of an electronic tool to assess and reduce the complexity of drug treatment considering patients’ views
title_short HIOPP-6 – a pilot study on the evaluation of an electronic tool to assess and reduce the complexity of drug treatment considering patients’ views
title_sort hiopp-6 – a pilot study on the evaluation of an electronic tool to assess and reduce the complexity of drug treatment considering patients’ views
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9241250/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35764923
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12875-022-01757-0
work_keys_str_mv AT wurmbachviktorias hiopp6apilotstudyontheevaluationofanelectronictooltoassessandreducethecomplexityofdrugtreatmentconsideringpatientsviews
AT schmidtsteffenj hiopp6apilotstudyontheevaluationofanelectronictooltoassessandreducethecomplexityofdrugtreatmentconsideringpatientsviews
AT lampertanette hiopp6apilotstudyontheevaluationofanelectronictooltoassessandreducethecomplexityofdrugtreatmentconsideringpatientsviews
AT bernardsimone hiopp6apilotstudyontheevaluationofanelectronictooltoassessandreducethecomplexityofdrugtreatmentconsideringpatientsviews
AT meidandreasd hiopp6apilotstudyontheevaluationofanelectronictooltoassessandreducethecomplexityofdrugtreatmentconsideringpatientsviews
AT frickeduard hiopp6apilotstudyontheevaluationofanelectronictooltoassessandreducethecomplexityofdrugtreatmentconsideringpatientsviews
AT metznermichael hiopp6apilotstudyontheevaluationofanelectronictooltoassessandreducethecomplexityofdrugtreatmentconsideringpatientsviews
AT wilmstefan hiopp6apilotstudyontheevaluationofanelectronictooltoassessandreducethecomplexityofdrugtreatmentconsideringpatientsviews
AT mortsieferachim hiopp6apilotstudyontheevaluationofanelectronictooltoassessandreducethecomplexityofdrugtreatmentconsideringpatientsviews
AT buckerbettina hiopp6apilotstudyontheevaluationofanelectronictooltoassessandreducethecomplexityofdrugtreatmentconsideringpatientsviews
AT altinerattila hiopp6apilotstudyontheevaluationofanelectronictooltoassessandreducethecomplexityofdrugtreatmentconsideringpatientsviews
AT sparenberglisa hiopp6apilotstudyontheevaluationofanelectronictooltoassessandreducethecomplexityofdrugtreatmentconsideringpatientsviews
AT szecsenyijoachim hiopp6apilotstudyontheevaluationofanelectronictooltoassessandreducethecomplexityofdrugtreatmentconsideringpatientsviews
AT petersklimmfrank hiopp6apilotstudyontheevaluationofanelectronictooltoassessandreducethecomplexityofdrugtreatmentconsideringpatientsviews
AT kaufmannkollepetra hiopp6apilotstudyontheevaluationofanelectronictooltoassessandreducethecomplexityofdrugtreatmentconsideringpatientsviews
AT thurmannpetraa hiopp6apilotstudyontheevaluationofanelectronictooltoassessandreducethecomplexityofdrugtreatmentconsideringpatientsviews
AT seidlinghannam hiopp6apilotstudyontheevaluationofanelectronictooltoassessandreducethecomplexityofdrugtreatmentconsideringpatientsviews
AT haefeliwaltere hiopp6apilotstudyontheevaluationofanelectronictooltoassessandreducethecomplexityofdrugtreatmentconsideringpatientsviews