ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2025
Patient, carer and healthcare professional perspectives on deprescribing in surgical wards: A mixed methods study.
Article in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Deprescribing: Reducing Harm, Enhancing Care.Rambam Maimonides medical journal · 2026Review
- Patient, carer and healthcare professional perspectives on deprescribing in surgical wards: A mixed methods study.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2025Article
- Retrospective multi-centre cohort study of polypharmacy, the Drug Burden Index and associations with outcomes in older surgical inpatients.Age and ageing · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsThe perspectives of patients and healthcare professionals regarding deprescribing in surgical wards within hospital settings are unknown. The aim of this study was to explore current practices, attitudes and the enablers and barriers to deprescribing in hospital for older surgical inpatients from the perspectives of doctors, pharmacists, patients and carers.
methodsA mixed methods study was performed. Two surveys were administered Australia-wide (revised Patients' Attitudes Towards Deprescribing questionnaire for patients/carers and Deprescribing Self-Efficacy Survey for doctors/pharmacists). Interviews, focus groups and observations of ward rounds were conducted with participants from five Australian hospitals. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively, while qualitative data were examined using a combined inductive and deductive approach, with results triangulated.
resultsThere were 109 survey participants (58 doctors/pharmacists and 51 patients/carers), 28 interview/focus group participants (15 doctors/pharmacists and 13 patients/carers) and eight ward round participants. Doctors and pharmacists reported low to moderate levels of confidence in deprescribing. While most patients and carers were satisfied with their medications, they expressed a willingness to consider deprescribing. Five themes were identified from the interviews, focus groups and ward round observations: (1) deprescribing is not a priority, (2) medication review occurs in response to triggers, (3) knowledge about deprescribing is limited, (4) deprescribing requires a team effort and (5) trust, rapport and communication are essential for successful deprescribing.
conclusionsDoctors working on surgical wards are unlikely to proactively deprescribe medications. A collaborative patient-centred approach involving geriatricians, clinical pharmacologists and pharmacists, along with educational interventions may facilitate deprescribing for surgical patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
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.