Article Text

Download PDFPDF

A realist evaluation of patients’ decisions to deprescribe in the EMPOWER trial
  1. Philippe Martin1,2,
  2. Cara Tannenbaum2,3
  1. 1 Faculty of Pharmacy, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Québec, Canada
  2. 2 Institut Universitaire de Gériatrie de Montréal, Montreal, Québec, Canada
  3. 3 Université de Montréal, Faculties of Medicine and Pharmacy, Montreal, Québec, Canada
  1. Correspondence to Philippe Martin; philippe.martin{at}umontreal.ca

Abstract

Background and objectives Successful mechanisms for engaging patients in the deprescribing process remain unknown but may include: (1) triggering motivation to deprescribe by increasing patients’ knowledge and concern about medications; (2) building capacity to taper by augmenting self-efficacy and (3) creating opportunities to discuss and receive support for deprescribing from a healthcare provider. We tested these mechanisms during theEliminating Medications through Patient Ownership of End Results (EMPOWER) () trial and investigated the contexts that led to positive and negative deprescribing outcomes.

Design A realist evaluation using a sequential mixed methods approach, conducted alongside the EMPOWER randomised clinical trial.

Setting Community, Quebec, Canada.

Participants 261 older chronic benzodiazepine consumers, who received the EMPOWER intervention and had complete 6-month follow-up data.

Intervention Mailed deprescribing brochure on benzodiazepines.

Measurements Motivation (intent to discuss deprescribing; change in knowledge test score; change in beliefs about the risk–benefits of benzodiazepines, measured with the Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire), capacity (self-efficacy for tapering) and opportunity (support from a physician or pharmacist).

Results The intervention triggered the motivation to deprescribe among 167 (n=64%) participants (mean age 74.6 years±6.3, 72% women), demonstrated by improved knowledge (risk difference, 58.50% (95% CI 46.98% to 67.44%)) and increased concern about taking benzodiazepines (risk difference, 67.67% (95% CI 57.36% to 74.91%)). Those who attempted to taper exhibited increased self-efficacy (risk difference, 56.90% (95% CI 45.41% to 65.77%)). Contexts where the deprescribing mechanisms failed included lack of support from a healthcare provider, a focus on short-term quality of life, intolerance to withdrawal symptoms and perceived poor health.

Conclusion Deprescribing mechanisms that target patient motivation and capacity to deprescribe yield successful outcomes in contexts where healthcare providers are supportive, and patients do not have internal competing desires to remain on drug therapy.

Trial registration number ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01148186.

  • deprescribing
  • benzodiazepines
  • realist evaluation
  • mechanisms
  • EMPOWER

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes

  • Contributors PM and CT contributed to the study concept and design, analysis and interpretation of data, drafting of the manuscript, critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content and final approval of the version to be published.

  • Funding This work was supported by Operating Grant OTG-88591 from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). PM received a doctoral bursary from the FRQS. CT was supported by a Senior Scientist Career Award from the FRQS. The above funding organisations had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis and interpretation of the data; preparation, review or approval of the manuscript; or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Ethics approval Institut Universitaire de Gériatrie de Montréal Ethics Committee.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Data sharing statement Dataset is available upon request to the corresponding author.