Eidam Annette, Roth Anja, Lacroix André, Goisser Sabine, Seidling Hanna M, Haefeli Walter E, Bauer Jürgen M
Center of Geriatric Medicine, Heidelberg University, AGAPLESION Bethanien Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg 69126, Germany.
Network Aging Research (NAR), Heidelberg University, Heidelberg 69115, Germany.
Patient Prefer Adherence. 2020 Mar 4;14:467-497. doi: 10.2147/PPA.S236964. eCollection 2020.
The aim of this systematic review was to identify methods used to assess medication preferences in older adults and evaluate their advantages and disadvantages with respect to their applicability to the context of multimorbidity and polypharmacy.
Three electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, PsycINFO) were searched. Eligible studies elicited individual treatment or outcome preferences in a context that involved long-term pharmacological treatment options. We included studies with a study population aged ≥ 65 years and/or with a mean or median age of ≥ 75 years. Qualitative studies, studies assessing preferences for only two different treatments, and studies targeting preferences for life-sustaining treatments were excluded. The identified preference measurement methods were evaluated based on four criteria (time budget, cognitive demand, variety of pharmacological aspects, and link with treatment strategies) judged to be relevant for the elicitation of patient preferences in polypharmacy.
Sixty articles met the eligibility criteria and were included in the narrative synthesis. Fifty-five different instruments to assess patient preferences, based on 24 different elicitation methods, were identified. The most commonly applied preference measurement techniques were "medication willingness" (description of a specific medication with inquiry of the participant's willingness to take it), discrete choice experiments, Likert scale-based questionnaires, and rank prioritization. The majority of the instruments were created for disease-specific or context-specific settings. Only three instruments (Outcome Prioritization Tool, a complex intervention, "MediMol" questionnaire) dealt with the broader issue of geriatric multimorbidity. Only seven of the identified tools showed somewhat favorable characteristics for a potential use of the respective method in the context of polypharmacy.
Up to now, few instruments have been specifically designed for the assessment of medication preferences in older patients with multimorbidity. To facilitate valid preference elicitation in the context of geriatric polypharmacy, future research should focus on suitable characteristics of existing techniques to develop new measurement approaches for this increasingly relevant population.
本系统评价旨在确定用于评估老年人用药偏好的方法,并评估这些方法在多病共存和多重用药背景下的适用性方面的优缺点。
检索了三个电子数据库(PubMed、科学网、PsycINFO)。符合条件的研究在涉及长期药物治疗选择的背景下引出个体治疗或结局偏好。我们纳入了研究人群年龄≥65岁和/或平均年龄或中位数年龄≥75岁的研究。排除定性研究、仅评估两种不同治疗偏好的研究以及针对维持生命治疗偏好的研究。基于被认为与多重用药情况下患者偏好引出相关的四个标准(时间预算、认知需求、药理学方面的多样性以及与治疗策略的联系)对确定的偏好测量方法进行评估。
60篇文章符合纳入标准并纳入叙述性综述。确定了基于24种不同引出方法的55种评估患者偏好的不同工具。最常用的偏好测量技术是“用药意愿”(描述一种特定药物并询问参与者服用意愿)、离散选择实验、基于李克特量表的问卷以及排序优先化。大多数工具是针对特定疾病或特定背景设置创建的。只有三种工具(结局优先化工具,一种复杂干预措施,“MediMol”问卷)涉及老年多病共存这一更广泛的问题。在所确定的工具中,只有七种在多重用药背景下使用相应方法具有一定的有利特征。
到目前为止,专门设计用于评估患有多种疾病的老年患者用药偏好的工具很少。为了促进老年多重用药背景下有效的偏好引出,未来的研究应关注现有技术的合适特征,以开发针对这一日益重要人群的新测量方法。