The association between prescription change frequency, chronic disease score and hospital admissions: a case control study

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess the association between prescription changes frequency (PCF) and hospital admissions and to compare the PCF to the Chronic Disease Score (CDS). The CDS measures comorbidity on the basis of the 1-year pharmacy dispensing data. In contrast, the PCF is based on prescription changes over a 3-month period. METHODS: A retrospective matched case–control design was conducted. 10.000 patients were selected randomly from the Dutch PHARMO database, who had been hospitalized (index date) between July 1, 1998 and June 30, 2000. The primary study outcome was the number of prescription changes during several three-month time periods starting 18, 12, 9, 6, and 3 months before the index date. For each hospitalized patient, one nonhospitalized patient was matched for age, sex, and geographic area, and was assigned the same index date as the corresponding hospitalized patient. We classified four mutually exclusive types of prescription changes: change in dosage, switch, stop and start. RESULTS: The study population comprised 8,681 hospitalized patients and an equal number of matched nonhospitalized patients. The odds ratio of hospital admission increased with an increase in PCF category. At 3 months before the index date from PCF=1 OR 1.4 [95% CI 1.3-1.5] to PCF= 2–3 OR 2.2 [95% CI 1.9-2.4] and to PCF ≥ 4 OR 4.1 [95% CI 3.1-5.1]. A higher CDS score was also associated with an increased odds ratio of hospitalization: OR 1.3 (95% CI 1.2-1.4) for CDS 3–4, and OR 3.0 (95% CI 2.7-3.3) for CDS 5 or higher. CONCLUSION: The prescription change frequency (PCF) is associated with hospital admission, like the CDS. Pharmacists and other healthcare workers should be alert when the frequency of prescription changes increases. Clinical rules could be helpful to make pharmacists and physicians aware of the risk of the number of prescription changes

Increasing value and reducing waste by optimizing the development of complex interventions: Enriching the development phase of the Medical Research Council (MRC) Framework

This is the final version of the article. Available from Elsevier via the DOI in this record.Background In recent years there has been much emphasis on ‘research waste’ caused by poor question selection, insufficient attention to previous research results, and avoidable weakness in research design, conduct and analysis. Little attention has been paid to the effect of inadequate development of interventions before proceeding to a full clinical trial. Objective We therefore propose to enrich the development phase of the MRC Framework by adding crucial elements to improve the likelihood of success and enhance the fit with clinical practice Methods Based on existing intervention development guidance and synthesis, a comprehensive iterative intervention development approach is proposed. Examples from published reports are presented to illustrate the methodology that can be applied within each element to enhance the intervention design. Results A comprehensive iterative approach is presented by combining the elements of the MRC Framework development phase with essential elements from existing guidance including: problem identification, the systematic identification of evidence, identification or development of theory, determination of needs, the examination of current practice and context, modelling the process and expected outcomes leading to final element: the intervention design. All elements are drawn from existing models to provide intervention developers with a greater chance of producing an intervention that is well adopted, effective and fitted to the context. Conclusion This comprehensive approach of developing interventions will strengthen the internal and external validity, minimize research waste and add value to health care research. In complex interventions in health care research, flaws in the development process immediately impact the chances of success. Knowledge regarding the causal mechanisms and interactions within the intended clinical context is needed to develop interventions that fit daily practice and are beneficial for the end-user