Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40037665›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2025

Protocol to evaluate the feasibility of the D-PRESCRIBE intervention adapted to the Belgian community setting (END-IT CS study).

Catherine Pétein, Tina Chevallereau, Josephine Aikpitanyi, Perrine Evrard, Sandy Tubeuf, Séverine Henrard, Anne Spinewine

Registry-linked trialAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05929417 (Feasibility of a Benzodiazepine Deprescribing Intervention in Older Adults Living in the Belgian Community Setting), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT05929417 naunknown statusnot on this map

Feasibility of a Benzodiazepine Deprescribing Intervention in Older Adults Living in the Belgian Community Setting

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversité Catholique de LouvainRan2023 to 2024Enrolled80ConditionsBenzodiazepine DeprescribingArmsEND-IT intervention for the community setting
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Catherine PéteinClinical Pharmacy and Pharmacoepidemiology research group, UCLouvain Louvain Drug Research Institute, Brussels, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7480-0014
Tina ChevallereauClinical Pharmacy and Pharmacoepidemiology research group, UCLouvain Louvain Drug Research Institute, Brussels, Belgium.
Josephine AikpitanyiInstitute of Health and Society (IRSS), UCLouvain, Brussels, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6209-137X
Perrine EvrardClinical Pharmacy and Pharmacoepidemiology research group, UCLouvain Louvain Drug Research Institute, Brussels, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0559-3787
Sandy TubeufInstitute of Health and Society (IRSS), UCLouvain, Brussels, Belgium.
Séverine Henrard *Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacoepidemiology research group, UCLouvain Louvain Drug Research Institute, Brussels, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0389-8093
Anne Spinewine *Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacoepidemiology research group, UCLouvain Louvain Drug Research Institute, Brussels, Belgium anne.spinewine@uclouvain.be.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionBenzodiazepine receptor agonists (BZRA) deprescribing interventions are needed to tackle high BZRA use in the older population. This study aims to assess the feasibility of the D-PRESCRIBE intervention, adapted from Canada to the Belgian community setting. This pharmacist-led intervention comprises a patient educational brochure and a pharmacist-to-prescriber communication tool. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a feasibility study of a cluster randomised controlled trial involving 8-10 community pharmacies (clusters) and aiming to recruit 56-80 patients (≥65 years). Intervention pharmacies will deliver the adapted D-PRESCRIBE intervention and control pharmacies, usual care. Patients will be blinded to group allocation. Quantitative data will be collected at baseline, 3 months and 6 months through patients' and pharmacists' questionnaires, aiming: (1) to test the feasibility of the intervention, (2) to test the feasibility of the study design needed for its evaluation and (3) to perform an exploratory cost-effectiveness analysis. Hence, data about implementation outcomes, mechanisms of impact (ie, mechanisms through which the intervention is supposed to be effective) and contextual factors will be gathered. Patient-centred outcomes will also be collected as they would be in a full cost-effectiveness trial. The feasibility of the study design will be assessed through participation rate, completeness of the data and a satisfaction survey, sent to participants after the 6-month data collection. Data will be analysed using descriptive statistics. To gain a deeper understanding of pharmacists and patients' experience with the intervention, interviews will be conducted after the 6-month data collection and the Theoretical Domains Framework will be used as a deductive framework for analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of CHU UCL Namur (NUB: B0392023000036). Participants will receive a summary of the results. Results will also be disseminated through the organisation of a local symposium and a peer-reviewed publication. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05929417.

Indexed as

Community Pharmacy ServicesDeprescriptionsPatient Education as TopicPharmacistsAgedAged, 80 and overBelgiumCost-Benefit AnalysisFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansMaleRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch DesignSurveys and QuestionnairesAgedDrug UtilisationFeasibility StudiesImplementation SciencePharmacists

Identifiers

PMID40037665
PMCPMC11891543

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.