ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2026
Co-design-related approaches in medication safety for people with dementia: A scoping review.
Article in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPeople with dementia manage complex medication regimens and face a heightened risk of medication-related harm. Co-design approaches are increasingly being used to develop interventions/tools to improve medication safety in this population.
objectivesTo describe how co-design has been applied in developing interventions or tools related to medication safety involving people with dementia and/or carers.
methodsWe conducted a scoping review across seven electronic databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Embase, Scopus, Association for Computing Machinery and Cochrane Library) to identify studies that adopted co-design. We evaluated which co-design phases (pre-design, generative, evaluative and post-design) were applied in each study.
resultsEight studies met the inclusion criteria. Two studies involved people with dementia and/or carers across all co-design phases. Studies adopted co-design approaches to inform intervention content, identify areas of improvement and/or increase their implementation in practice. Most studies involved people with dementia and/or carers in two phases of co-design (n = 4), the generative and evaluative phases. The evaluative phase was the most frequently used (n = 7), followed by the generative phase (n = 5) and lastly the pre-design (n = 3) and post-design phases (n = 3). Interventions addressed deprescribing (n = 4), medication management (n = 3 and prescribing cascades (n = 1). Reported benefits included improved relevance, accessibility and usability of interventions through stakeholder input.
conclusionCo-design in medication safety for dementia care remains inconsistently applied and reported. Greater emphasis on meaningful involvement across all phases is needed to ensure interventions reflect lived experience. The utilisation of co-design frameworks may improve the reporting of co-design approaches in medication safety studies.
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.