Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37796569›Full record

ArticleJMIR aging2023

Older Persons' and Health Care Professionals' Design Choices When Co-Designing a Medication Plan Aiming to Promote Patient Safety: Case Study.

Malin Holmqvist, Linda Johansson, Bertil Lindenfalk, Johan Thor, Axel Ros

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR aging, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 34% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Consumer Involvement in the Design and Development of Medication Safety Interventions or Services in Primary Care: A Scoping Review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Malin HolmqvistDepartment of Public Health and Healthcare, Region Jönköping County, Jönköping, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3221-9800
Linda JohanssonInstitute of Gerontology, School of Health and Welfare, Jönköping University, Jönköping, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7101-3165
Bertil LindenfalkJönköping Academy for Improvement of Health and Welfare, School of Health and Welfare, Jönköping University, Jönköping, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0123-6392
Johan ThorJönköping Academy for Improvement of Health and Welfare, School of Health and Welfare, Jönköping University, Jönköping, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1814-4478
Axel RosJönköping Academy for Improvement of Health and Welfare, School of Health and Welfare, Jönköping University, Jönköping, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6302-8068
Jönköping University · SERegion Jönköpings län · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHarm from medications is a major patient safety challenge among older persons. Adverse drug events tend to arise when prescribing or evaluating medications; therefore, interventions targeting these may promote patient safety. Guidelines highlight the value of a joint plan for continued treatment. If such a plan includes medications, a medication plan promoting patient safety is advised. There is growing evidence for the benefits of including patients and health care professionals in initiatives for improving health care products and services through co-design.

objectiveThis study aimed to identify participants' needs and requirements for a medication plan and explore their reasoning for different design choices.

methodsUsing a case study design, we collected and analyzed qualitative and quantitative data and compared them side by side. We explored the needs and requirements for a medication plan expressed by 14 participants (older persons, nurses, and physicians) during a co-design initiative in a regional health system in Sweden. We performed a directed content analysis of qualitative data gathered from co-design sessions and interviews. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the quantitative data from survey answers.

resultsA medication plan must provide an added everyday value related to safety, effort, and engagement. The physicians addressed challenges in setting aside time to apply a medication plan, whereas the older persons raised the potential for increased patient involvement. According to the participants, a medication plan needs to support communication, continuity, and interaction. The nurses specifically addressed the need for a plan that was easy to gain an overview of. Important function requirements included providing instant access, automation, and attention. Content requirements included providing detailed information about the medication treatment. Having the plan linked to the medication list and instantly obtainable information was also requested.

conclusionsAfter discussing the needs and requirements for a medication plan, the participants agreed on an iteratively developed medication plan prototype linked to the medication list within the existing electronic health record. According to the participants, the medication plan prototype may promote patient safety and enable patient engagement, but concerns were raised about its use in daily clinical practice. The last step in the co-design framework is testing the intervention to explore how it works and connects with users. Therefore, testing the medication plan prototype in clinical practice would be a future step.

Indexed as

co-designengagementmedication planmedicationsolder adultsolder peopleparticipatorypatient experiencepatient safetyremote

Identifiers

PMID37796569
PMCPMC10587803
OpenAlexW4387357031

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.