A multi-stakeholder approach to the co-production of the research agenda for medicines optimisation

© The Author(s) 2021. This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), and indicate if changes were made.BACKGROUND: Up to 50% of medicines are not used as intended, resulting in poor health and economic outcomes. Medicines optimisation is 'a person-centred approach to safe and effective medicines use, to ensure people obtain the best possible outcomes from their medicines'. The purpose of this exercise was to co-produce a prioritised research agenda for medicines optimisation using a multi-stakeholder (patient, researcher, public and health professionals) approach. METHODS: A three-stage, multiple method process was used including: generation of preliminary research questions (Stage 1) using a modified Nominal Group Technique; electronic consultation and ranking with a wider multi-stakeholder group (Stage 2); a face-to-face, one-day consensus meeting involving representatives from all stakeholder groups (Stage 3). RESULTS: In total, 92 research questions were identified during Stages 1 and 2 and ranked in order of priority during stage 3. Questions were categorised into four areas: 'Patient Concerns' [e.g. is there a shared decision (with patients) about using each medicine?], 'Polypharmacy' [e.g. how to design health services to cope with the challenge of multiple medicines use?], 'Non-Medical Prescribing' [e.g. how can the contribution of non-medical prescribers be optimised in primary care?], and 'Deprescribing' [e.g. what support is needed by prescribers to deprescribe?]. A significant number of the 92 questions were generated by Patient and Public Involvement representatives, which demonstrates the importance of including this stakeholder group when identifying research priorities. CONCLUSIONS: A wide range of research questions was generated reflecting concerns which affect patients, practitioners, the health service, as well the ethical and philosophical aspects of the prescribing and deprescribing of medicines. These questions should be used to set future research agendas and funding commissions.Peer reviewedFinal Published versio

The impact of Covid-19 pandemic on hospices : a systematic integrated review and synthesis of recommendations for policy and practice

Background: The Covid-19 pandemic resulted in the development of numerous recommendations for practice and policy for specialist palliative care provided by hospices in United Kingdom (UK), as hospices were significantly affected by the pandemic and protections put in place. The aim of this review is to identify and synthesise recommendations or implications for policy and practice that have been generated for adult hospice specialist palliative care during the first 24 months of the Covid-19 pandemic. Methods: AMED, BNI, CINAHL, EMBASE, EMCARE, HMIC, Medline, PsycINFO, PubMed databases were searched for peer-reviewed papers, as well as hand searchers for grey literature. Literature relating to hospices and Covid-19 in the UK were included and a thematic synthesis of recommendations for hospice policy and practice was undertaken. Results: 858 articles were identified with 12 meeting the inclusion criteria. Fifty-eight recommendations or implications were identified: 31 for policy, 27 for practice, and 10 covering both. Recommendations were organised under ten themes. There were several recommendations seeking to secure hospice resources to mitigate the short-term impact of the pandemic, as well as those focused on longer-term implications such as core funding. The impact of the pandemic on the quality of hospice care was the focus for numerous recommendations around improving integration of hospice care in the community, provision of bereavement support and better use of Advance Care Plans (ACP). However, there were significant gaps related to carer visitation in hospices, inequities of palliative care, or hospice-at-home services. Conclusion: The Covid-19 pandemic and protections exposed several ongoing policy and practice needs, especially around hospice resources, while generating novel issues for hospices to address. Significant policy gaps remain to be addressed to mitigate the impact of the pandemic on the quality of hospice specialist palliative care

Involving Patients in Health Economics Research:“The PACTS Principles”

Discussion of public and patient involvement (PPI) in health economics (HE) research is growing. There is much literature on PPI principles and standards, but little specifically regarding involving patients in HE research. Here, we outline “PACTS”, a set of principles, developed with a PPI group, for considering patient involvement in HE research. Planning: Involvement is best built in to research plans from the outset. This includes setting specific goals for involvement activities, and clearly communicating the background and purpose of involvement. Approach selection: We describe two main approaches to involvement—discussion-based and task-based. Discussion-based approaches are useful for generating broad insights and revealing “unknown unknowns”. Task-based approaches offer a more focused means of shedding light on “known unknowns”. Continuous involvement: Involving patients throughout the research process and across a range of projects helps build expertise for patients and insight for HE researchers. Team building: Meaningful involvement creates a shared sense of ownership of the research and, over time, helps to develop a team ethos, enhancing the positive impacts of involvement. Sensitivity: HE research can be perceived as technical and impersonal. Addressing this requires sensitivity, clarity, and an honest and open approach. There is increased recognition that patient contributors are experts at providing a “lived experience” perspective, in the way that clinicians are experts at providing an overview of conditions and HEs are experts in the methodology of their discipline. We hope these “PACTS Principles” complement existing PPI approaches and provide a useful foundation for health economists considering patient involvement

Understanding joy amongst older people: a scoping review protocol

Objective: The objective of this scoping review is to understand the extent and type of evidence in relation to joy and older people. Introduction: The population is ageing and accompanied by increased risk of poor health, disability and reduced quality of life. A life that involves worthwhile activities may help promote successful and healthy ageing. To date there has been little focus on joy amongst older people in the literature. Inclusion criteria: Studies will be eligible if they include those aged 65 and over, set in their usual place of residence and describe the experience or evaluation of joy. Studies set in hospital and those involving mixed age groups will be excluded. All study designs will be considered. Methods: The databases to be searched include: Medline, CINAHL, PsycINFO, BNI, Web of Science, HMIC and Social Policy and Practice (SPP), and PQDT. Grey literature will also be searched through GOOGLE scholar using Publish or Perish and the British Library EXPLORE catalogue. Screening will be conducted independently by two reviewers and data will extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second

A multi-stakeholder approach to the co-production of the research agenda for medicines optimisation

10.1186/s12913-021-06056-5BMC HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH21

The impact of Covid-19 pandemic on hospices: A systematic integrated review and synthesis of recommendations for policy and practice [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]

Background: The Covid-19 pandemic resulted in the development of numerous recommendations for practice and policy for specialist palliative care provided by hospices in United Kingdom (UK), as hospices were significantly affected by the pandemic and protections put in place. The aim of this review is to identify and synthesise recommendations or implications for policy and practice that have been generated for adult hospice specialist palliative care during the first 24 months of the Covid-19 pandemic. Methods: AMED, BNI, CINAHL, EMBASE, EMCARE, HMIC, Medline, PsycINFO, PubMed databases were searched for peer-reviewed papers, as well as hand searches for grey literature. Literature relating to hospices and Covid-19 in the UK were included and a thematic synthesis of recommendations for hospice policy and practice was undertaken. Results: 858 articles were identified with 12 meeting the inclusion criteria. Fifty-eight recommendations or implications were identified: 31 for policy, 27 for practice, and 10 covering both. Recommendations were organised under ten themes. There were several recommendations seeking to secure hospice resources to mitigate the short-term impact of the pandemic, as well as those focused on longer-term implications such as core funding. The impact of the pandemic on the quality of hospice care was the focus for numerous recommendations around improving integration of hospice care in the community, provision of bereavement support and better use of Advance Care Plans (ACP). However, there were significant gaps related to carer visitation in hospices, inequities of palliative care, or hospice-at-home services. Conclusion: The Covid-19 pandemic and protections exposed several ongoing policy and practice needs, especially around hospice resources, while generating novel issues for hospices to address. Significant policy gaps remain to be addressed to mitigate the impact of the pandemic on the quality of hospice specialist palliative care