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

Tools

Fellenor, John and Britten, Nicky and Courtenay, Molly and Payne, Rupert A. and Valderas, Jose and Denholm, Rachel and Duncan, Polly and McCahon, Deborah and Tatnell, Lynn and Fitzgerald, Richard and Warmoth, Krystal and Gillespie, David and Turner, Katrina and Watson, Margaret (2021) A multi-stakeholder approach to the co-production of the research agenda for medicines optimisation. BMC Health Services Research, 21. 64. ISSN 1472-6963 (https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-06056-5)

[thumbnail of Fellenor-etal-BMCHSR-2021-A multi-stakeholder-approach-co-production-research-agenda-medicines-optimisation]
Preview
 Text. Filename: Fellenor_etal_BMCHSR_2021_A_multi_stakeholder_approach_co_production_research_agenda_medicines_optimisation.pdf
Final Published Version
License: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 logo
Download (997kB)| Preview

Abstract

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.

ORCID iDs

Fellenor, John, Britten, Nicky, Courtenay, Molly, Payne, Rupert A., Valderas, Jose, Denholm, Rachel, Duncan, Polly, McCahon, Deborah, Tatnell, Lynn, Fitzgerald, Richard, Warmoth, Krystal, Gillespie, David, Turner, Katrina and Watson, Margaret ORCID logoORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8198-9273;
CORE (COnnecting REpositories)