Adaptation and validation of the screening tool of older people's prescriptions instrument for the Indonesian population

Fauziyah, Siti; Andrajati, Retnosari; Sartika, Ratu Ayu Dewi; Radji, Maksum

doi:10.4103/jrpp.jrpp_19_106

Cited by 6 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Explicit tools can be easily applied with little or no clinical judgement, and the most studied explicit tool is the Beers list, which was first published in the USA in 1991 13 and last updated in 2019 14 . Other explicit tools, the STOPP (Screening Tool of Older Person's Prescriptions) and START (Screening Tool to Alert doctors to Right Treatment) criteria, were developed in Europe in 2008 (later revised in 2014), 10,15 and have now become widely used tool in Europe and elsewhere 16–19 . The Beers and STOPP criteria address PIMs, whereas the START criteria enable detection of PPOs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 14 Other explicit tools, the STOPP (Screening Tool of Older Person's Prescriptions) and START (Screening Tool to Alert doctors to Right Treatment) criteria, were developed in Europe in 2008 (later revised in 2014), 10 , 15 and have now become widely used tool in Europe and elsewhere. 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 The Beers and STOPP criteria address PIMs, whereas the START criteria enable detection of PPOs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Potentially inappropriate prescribing and its associations with health‐related and system‐related outcomes in hospitalised older adults: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Mekonnen

Redley

Courten

et al. 2021

Brit J Clinical Pharma

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

January 2021 investigating associations between PIP and health-related and systemrelated outcomes of older adults in hospital settings, were included. A random effects model was employed using the generic inverse variance method to pool risk estimates.Results: Overall, 63 studies were included. Pooled risk estimates did not show a significant association with all-cause mortality (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 1.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.90-1.36; adjusted hazard ratio 1.02, 83% CI 0.90-1.16), and hospital readmission (AOR 1.11, 95% CI 0.76-1.63; adjusted hazard ratio 1.02, 95% CI 0.89-1.18). PIP was associated with 91%, 60% and 26% increased odds of adverse drug event-related hospital admissions (AOR 1.91, 95% CI 1.21-3.01), functional decline (AOR 1.60, 95% CI 1.28-2.01), and adverse drug reactions and adverse drug events (AOR 1.26, 95% CI 1.11-1.43), respectively. PIP was associated with falls (2/2 studies). The impact of PIP on emergency department visits, length of stay, and health-related quality of life was inconclusive. Economic cost of PIP reported in 3 studies, comprised various cost estimation methods.Conclusions: PIP was significantly associated with a range of health-related and system-related outcomes. It is important to optimise older adults' prescriptions to facilitate improved outcomes of care.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Potentially inappropriate prescribing and its associations with health‐related and system‐related outcomes in hospitalised older adults: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Mekonnen

Redley

Courten

et al. 2021

Brit J Clinical Pharma

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We excluded 4,311 out of 4,388 articles identified in Ovid/MEDLINE and EMBASE after review of the title and/or abstract, and 27 additional articles upon full-text review ( Figure 1 ). The 50 remaining articles yielded 16 sets of indications, including 12 sets of prescribing criteria, 8 , 9 , 23 – 33 and 4 sets of prescribing measures. 10 , 19 , 34 , 35 Four of these 16 sets were identified by searching the references of studies employing the indications.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Focus and features of prescribing indications spanning multiple chronic conditions in older adults: A narrative review

Aubert

Kerr

Klamerus³

et al. 2021

Journal of Multimorbidity and Comorbidity

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Inappropriate prescribing is frequent in older adults and associated with adverse outcomes. Prescribing indications aim to optimize prescribing, but little is known about the focus and features of prescribing indications for the most common chronic conditions in older adults. Understanding the conditions, medications, and issues addressed (e.g., patient perspective, drug-disease interaction, adverse drug event) in current prescribing indications may help to identify missing indications and develop standardized measures to improve prescribing quality. Methods: We searched Ovid/MEDLINE and EMBASE for articles published between 2015 and 2020 reporting prescribing indications for older adults. Prescribing indication included 1) prescribing “criteria,” or statements that guide prescribing action, and 2) prescribing “measures,” or prescribing actions observed in a population. We categorized their focus by conditions, medications and issues addressed, as well as level of evidence provided. Results: Among 16 sets of prescribing indications, we identified 748 criteria and 47 measures. The most common addressed medications were antihypertensives, analgesics/antirheumatics, and antiplatelets/anticoagulants. The most frequently addressed issues were drug-disease interaction, adverse drug event, administration, better therapeutic alternative, and (co-)prescription omission (20.8–36.1%). Age/functioning, drug-drug interaction, monitoring, and efficacy/safety ratio were found in only 9.9–16.5% of indications. Indications rarely focused on the patient perspective or issues with multiple providers. Conclusion: Most prescribing indications for chronic conditions in older patients are criteria rather than measures. Indications accounting for patient perspective and multiple providers are limited. The gaps identified in this review may help improve the development of prescribing measures for older adults and ultimately improve quality of care.

show abstract

“…We identified two tools developed by direct translation. 86,120 5. Expert-led tool development approaches: We identified three expert-led tool development approaches.…”

Section: Reclassification Of Existing Toolsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Additionally, there are tools that focus on the community setting (n = 19/95, 20%), 64,67,73,82,[106][107][108][109][110][111][112][113][114][115][116][117][118] targeted to aid deprescribing in primary care clinics, ambulatory centres and outpatient facilities. Lastly, there are tools specifically aimed at secondary care settings (n = 8/95, 8.42%), 74,75,78,80,81,[119][120][121] Furthermore, a subset of the identified deprescribing tools and guidelines (14 tools and five guidelines) has been specifically developed to assess the appropriateness of medication use for older adults with limited life expectancy. These tools cater to the unique needs of older adults facing limited life expectancy, including advanced dementia, 52,101,125 advanced cancer, 80,81 frailty and/or varying durations of remaining life expectancy.…”

Section: Target Populationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tools and guidelines to assess the appropriateness of medication and aid deprescribing: An umbrella review

Anlay,

Paque,

Van Leeuwen

et al. 2023

Brit J Clinical Pharma

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AIMSThe aim of this umbrella review was to identify tools and guidelines to aid the deprescribing process of potentially inappropriate medications (PIM), evaluate development and validation methods, and describe evidence levels for medication inclusion.METHODSSearches were conducted on MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase.com, Cochrane CDSR, CINAHL (EBSCO), Web of Science Core Collection, and guideline databases from the date of inception to July 7, 2022 and checked for updated tools on July 17, 2023. We analysed the contents of tools and guidelines.RESULTSFrom 23 systematic reviews and guidelines, we identified 95 tools (72 explicit, 12 mixed, 11 implicit) and 9 guidelines. Most tools (83.2%) were developed to use for older persons, including 14 for those with limited life expectancy. Seven tools were for children <18 years (7.37%). Most explicit/mixed tools (78.57%) and all guidelines were validated. We found 484 PIMs and 202 medications with different appropriateness independent of disease for older persons with normal and limited life expectancy, respectively. Only two tools and eight guidelines reported the evidence level, and a quarter of medications had high‐quality evidence.CONCLUSIONTools are available for a diversity of populations. There were discrepancies with the same medication being classified as inappropriate in some tools and appropriate in others, possibly due to low‐quality evidence. Particularly, tools for patients with limited life expectancy were developed based on very limited evidence, and research to generate this evidence is highly needed. Our medication lists, along with the level of evidence, could facilitate efforts to strengthen the evidence.

show abstract

Adaptation and validation of the screening tool of older people's prescriptions instrument for the Indonesian population

Cited by 6 publications

References 16 publications

Potentially inappropriate prescribing and its associations with health‐related and system‐related outcomes in hospitalised older adults: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Potentially inappropriate prescribing and its associations with health‐related and system‐related outcomes in hospitalised older adults: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Focus and features of prescribing indications spanning multiple chronic conditions in older adults: A narrative review

Tools and guidelines to assess the appropriateness of medication and aid deprescribing: An umbrella review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About