We conclude that abbreviated scales such as the LSNS-6 should be considered for inclusion in practice protocols of gerontological practitioners. Screening older persons based on the LSNS-6 provides quantitative information on their family and friendship ties, and identifies persons at increased risk for social isolation who might benefit from in-depth assessment and targeted interventions.

BackgroundQuality indicators (QIs) are used in many healthcare settings to measure, compare, and improve quality of care. For the efficient development of high-quality QIs, rigorous, approved, and evidence-based development methods are needed. Clinical practice guidelines are a suitable source to derive QIs from, but no gold standard for guideline-based QI development exists. This review aims to identify, describe, and compare methodological approaches to guideline-based QI development.MethodsWe systematically searched medical literature databases (Medline, EMBASE, and CINAHL) and grey literature. Two researchers selected publications reporting methodological approaches to guideline-based QI development. In order to describe and compare methodological approaches used in these publications, we extracted detailed information on common steps of guideline-based QI development (topic selection, guideline selection, extraction of recommendations, QI selection, practice test, and implementation) to predesigned extraction tables.ResultsFrom 8,697 hits in the database search and several grey literature documents, we selected 48 relevant references. The studies were of heterogeneous type and quality. We found no randomized controlled trial or other studies comparing the ability of different methodological approaches to guideline-based development to generate high-quality QIs. The relevant publications featured a wide variety of methodological approaches to guideline-based QI development, especially regarding guideline selection and extraction of recommendations. Only a few studies reported patient involvement.ConclusionsFurther research is needed to determine which elements of the methodological approaches identified, described, and compared in this review are best suited to constitute a gold standard for guideline-based QI development. For this research, we provide a comprehensive groundwork.

ObjectivesTo describe the prevalence and determinants of potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) use and association with hospitalizations in an elderly managed care population in Switzerland.MethodsUsing health care claims data of four health insurers for a sample of managed care patients 65 years of age and older to compare persons on PIM with persons not on PIM. Beers' 2012 and PRISCUS criteria were used to determine the potential inappropriateness of prescribed medications. The sample included 16′490 elderly patients on PIM and 33′178 patients not on PIM in the time period of January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2012. Prevalence estimates are standardized to the population of Switzerland. Associations between PIM and hospitalizations were examined by multivariate Cox regression analyses controlling for possible confounding variables.ResultsThe estimated prevalence of PIM use in our managed care sample was 22.5%. Logistic regression analysis showed that number of different medications used in the previous year, total costs in the previous year and hospitalization in the previous year all significantly increased the likelihood of receiving PIM. Multiple Cox regression analysis revealed that those on cumulative levels of PIM use acted significantly as a factor related to greater hospitalization rates: the adjusted HR was 1.13 (95% CI 1.07–1.19) for 1 PIM, 1.27 (95% CI 1.19–1.35) for 2 PIM, 1.35 (95% CI 1.22–1.50) for 3 PIM, and 1.63 (95% CI 1.40–1.90) for more than 3 PIM compared to no PIM use.ConclusionsThe prevalence of PIM in managed care health plans are widely found but seem to be much lower than rates of non-managed care plans. Furthermore, our study revealed a significant association with adverse outcomes in terms of hospitalizations. These findings stress the need for further development of interventions to decrease drug-related problems and manage patients with multiple chronic conditions.

BackgroundIn 2010 the ‘Polymedication Check’ (PMC), a pharmacist-led medication review, was newly introduced to be delivered independently from the prescriber and reimbursed by the Swiss health insurances. This study aimed at evaluating the impact of this new cognitive service focusing on medicines use and patients’ adherence in everyday life.MethodsThis randomised controlled trial was conducted in 54 Swiss community pharmacies. Eligible patients used ≥4 prescribed medicines over >3 months. The intervention group received a PMC at study start (T-0) and after 28 weeks (T-28) while the control group received only a PMC at T-28.Primary outcome measure was change in patients’ objective adherence, calculated as Medication Possession Ratio (MPR) and Daily Polypharmacy Possession Ratio (DPPR), using refill data from the pharmacies and patient information of dosing.Subjective adherence was assessed as secondary outcome by self-report questionnaires (at T-0 and T-28) and telephone interviews (at T-2 and T-16), where participants estimated their overall adherence on a scale from 0–100 %.Results and discussionA total of 450 patients were randomly allocated to intervention (N = 218, 48.4 %) and control group (N = 232, 51.6 %). Dropout rate was fairly low and comparable for both groups (NInt = 37 (17.0 %), NCont = 41 (17.7 %), p = 0.845). Main addressed drug-related problem (DRP) during PMC at T-0 was insufficient adherence to at least one medicine (N = 69, 26.7 %). At T-28, 1020 chronic therapies fulfilled inclusion criteria for MPR calculation, representing 293 of 372 patients (78.8 %). Mean MPR and adherence to polypharmacy (DPPR) for both groups were equally high (MPRInt = 88.3, SD = 19.03; MPRCont = 87.5, SD = 20.75 (p = 0.811) and DPPRInt = 88.0, SD = 13.31; DPPRCont = 87.5, SD = 20.75 (p = 0.906), respectively).Mean absolute change of subjective adherence between T-0 and T-2 was +1.03 % in the intervention and −0.41 % in the control group (p = 0.058). The number of patients reporting a change of their adherence of more than ±5 points on a scale 0–100 % between T-0 and T-2 was significantly higher in the intervention group (NImprovement = 30; NWorsening = 14) than in the control group (NImprovement = 20; NWorsening = 24; p = 0.028).ConclusionThrough the PMC pharmacist were able to identify a significant number of DRPs. Participants showed high baseline objective adherence of 87.5 %, providing little potential for improvement. Hence, no significant increase of objective adherence was observed. However, regarding changes in subjective adherence of more than ±5 % the PMC showed a positive effect.Trial registrationClinical trial registry database, NCT01739816; first entry on November 27, 2012.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-016-1384-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundMetamizole is used to treat pain in many parts of the world. Information on the safety profile of metamizole is scarce; no conclusive summary of the literature exists.ObjectiveTo determine whether metamizole is clinically safe compared to placebo and other analgesics.MethodsWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and several clinical trial registries. We screened the reference lists of included trials and previous systematic reviews. We included randomized controlled trials that compared the effects of metamizole, administered to adults in any form and for any indication, to other analgesics or to placebo. Two authors extracted data regarding trial design and size, indications for pain medication, patient characteristics, treatment regimens, and methodological characteristics. Adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), and dropouts were assessed. We conducted separate meta-analyses for each metamizole comparator, using standard inverse-variance random effects meta-analysis to pool the estimates across trials, reported as risk ratios (RRs). We calculated the DerSimonian and Laird variance estimate T2 to measure heterogeneity between trials. The pre-specified primary end point was any AE during the trial period.ResultsOf the 696 potentially eligible trials, 79 trials including almost 4000 patients with short-term metamizole use of less than two weeks met our inclusion criteria. Fewer AEs were reported for metamizole compared to opioids, RR = 0.79 (confidence interval 0.79 to 0.96). We found no differences between metamizole and placebo, paracetamol and NSAIDs. Only a few SAEs were reported, with no difference between metamizole and other analgesics. No agranulocytosis or deaths were reported. Our results were limited by the mediocre overall quality of the reports.ConclusionFor short-term use in the hospital setting, metamizole seems to be a safe choice when compared to other widely used analgesics. High-quality, adequately sized trials assessing the intermediate- and long-term safety of metamizole are needed.

Background: Although psychosocial factors are known to be highly linked with neck pain, current therapies focus on somatically based interventions such as medicinal or manipulatory therapies. This study examines how socio-demographic, psychosocial and medical history and healthpromoting lifestyle factors interact with neck pain in general practice patients.

Although the present study has a number of limitations, we conclude that the prevalence of polypharmacy and PIM in Switzerland is high. A broad spectrum of interventions on the individual level as well as on the population level is urgently needed.

The aim of this study is to evaluate the validity and the psychometric properties of a German version of the 20-item neck pain and disability scale (NPAD) for use in primary care settings. Four hundred and forty-eight participants from 15 general practices in the area of Göttingen Germany completed a multidimensional questionnaire including a newly developed German version of the NPAD (NPAD-d) and self-reported demographic and clinical information. Reliability was tested using Cronbach’s alpha. Item-to-total score correlations were analysed. Factor structure was explored by using unrestricted principal factor analysis. Construct validity of the NPAD-d was evaluated by simple correlation analyses (Pearson’s rho) with social and clinical characteristics. The discriminative abilities of the NPAD-d were examined by comparing differences between subgroups stratified on non-NPAD-d pain related characteristics using t tests for mean scores. Cronbach’s alpha of NPAD-d was 0.94. Item-to-total scale correlations ranged between 0.414 and 0.829. Exploratory principal factor analysis indicated that the NPAD-d covers one factor with an explained variance of 48%. Correlation analysis showed high correlations with criterion variables. The NAPD-d scores of subgroups of patients were significantly different showing good discriminative validity of the scale. The NPAD-d demonstrated good validity and reliability in this general practice setting. The NPAD-d may be useful in the clinical assessment process and the management of neck pain.