IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0188348.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A modified Delphi study to determine the level of consensus across the European Union on the structures, processes and desired outcomes of the management of polypharmacy in older people

Author

Listed:
  • Derek Stewart
  • Kathrine Gibson-Smith
  • Katie MacLure
  • Alpana Mair
  • Albert Alonso
  • Carles Codina
  • Antonio Cittadini
  • Fernando Fernandez-Llimos
  • Glenda Fleming
  • Dimitra Gennimata
  • Ulrika Gillespie
  • Cathy Harrison
  • Ulrike Junius-Walker
  • Przemysław Kardas
  • Thomas Kempen
  • Moira Kinnear
  • Pawel Lewek
  • Joao Malva
  • Jennifer McIntosh
  • Claire Scullin
  • Birgitt Wiese

Abstract

Background: Inappropriate use of multiple medicines (inappropriate polypharmacy) is a major challenge in older people with consequences of increased prevalence and severity of adverse drug reactions and interactions, and reduced medicines adherence. The aim of this study was to determine the levels of consensus amongst key stakeholders in the European Union (EU) in relation to aspects of the management of polypharmacy in older people. Methods: Forty-six statements were developed on aspects of healthcare structures, processes and desired outcomes, with consensus defined at ≥ 80% agreement. Panel members were strategists (e.g. directors, leading clinicians and commissioners) from each of the 28 EU member states, with a target recruitment of five per member state. Three Delphi rounds were conducted via email, with panel members being provided with summative results and collated, anonymised comments at the commencement of Rounds 2 and 3. Results: Ninety panel members were recruited (64.3% of target), with high participation levels throughout the three Delphi rounds (91.1%, 83.3%, 72.2%). During Round 1, consensus was obtained for 27/46 statements (58.7%), with an additional two statements in Round 2 and none in Round 3. Consensus was obtained for statements relating to: potential gain arising from polypharmacy management (3/4 statements); strategic development (7/7); change management (5/7) indicator measures (4/6); legislation (0/3); awareness raising (5/5); polypharmacy reviews (5/7); and EU vision (0/7). Analysis of free text comments indicated that the vision statements were too ambitious and not achievable by the specified timeframe of 2025. Conclusion: Consensus was obtained amongst key EU strategists around many aspects of polypharmacy management in older people. Notably, no consensus was achieved in relation to statements relating to the need to alter legislation in areas of healthcare delivery, remuneration and practitioner scope of practice. While the vision for the EU by 2025 was considered rather ambitious, there is great potential and clear opportunity to advance polypharmacy management throughout the EU and beyond.

Suggested Citation

  • Derek Stewart & Kathrine Gibson-Smith & Katie MacLure & Alpana Mair & Albert Alonso & Carles Codina & Antonio Cittadini & Fernando Fernandez-Llimos & Glenda Fleming & Dimitra Gennimata & Ulrika Gilles, 2017. "A modified Delphi study to determine the level of consensus across the European Union on the structures, processes and desired outcomes of the management of polypharmacy in older people," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(11), pages 1-17, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0188348
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0188348
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0188348
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0188348&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0188348?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fink, A. & Kosecoff, J. & Chassin, M. & Brook, R.H., 1984. "Consensus methods: Characteristics and guidelines for use," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 74(9), pages 979-983.
    2. Cathal A. Cadogan & Cristín Ryan & Carmel M. Hughes, 2016. "Appropriate Polypharmacy and Medicine Safety: When Many is not Too Many," Drug Safety, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 109-116, February.
    3. von der Gracht, Heiko A., 2012. "Consensus measurement in Delphi studies," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 79(8), pages 1525-1536.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Victoria Austin & Kate Mattick & Cathy Holloway, 2021. "“This Is the Story of Community Leadership with Political Backing. (PM1)” Critical Junctures in Paralympic Legacy: Framing the London 2012 Disability Inclusion Model for New Global Challenges," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-25, August.
    2. Davide Parmigiani & Sarah-Louise Jones & Chiara Silvaggio & Elisabetta Nicchia & Asia Ambrosini & Myrna Pario & Andrea Pedevilla & Ilaria Sardi, 2022. "Assessing Global Competence Within Teacher Education Programs. How to Design and Create a Set of Rubrics With a Modified Delphi Method," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(4), pages 21582440221, October.
    3. Rebecca Scott & Pippa Scott & Peter Hawkins & Isabel Blackett & Andrew Cotton & Alix Lerebours, 2019. "Integrating Basic Urban Services for Better Sanitation Outcomes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-17, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Meissner, Philip & Brands, Christian & Wulf, Torsten, 2017. "Quantifiying blind spots and weak signals in executive judgment: A structured integration of expert judgment into the scenario development process," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 244-253.
    2. Bokrantz, Jon & Skoogh, Anders & Berlin, Cecilia & Stahre, Johan, 2017. "Maintenance in digitalised manufacturing: Delphi-based scenarios for 2030," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C), pages 154-169.
    3. Prianto Budi Saptono & Gustofan Mahmud & Intan Pratiwi & Dwi Purwanto & Ismail Khozen & Muhamad Akbar Aditama & Siti Khodijah & Maria Eurelia Wayan & Rina Yuliastuty Asmara & Ferry Jie, 2023. "Development of Climate-Related Disclosure Indicators for Application in Indonesia: A Delphi Method Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-25, July.
    4. Petreski Marjan & Petreski Blagica & Tumanoska Despina & Narazani Edlira & Kazazi Fatush & Ognjanov Galjina & Jankovic Irena & Mustafa Arben & Kochovska Tereza, 2017. "The Size and Effects of Emigration and Remittances in the Western Balkans. A Forecasting Based on a Delphi Process," Südosteuropa. Journal of Politics and Society, De Gruyter, vol. 65(4), pages 679-695, December.
    5. Nibedita Mukherjee & Jean Huge & Farid Dahdouh-Guebas & Nico Koedam, 2014. "Ecosystem service valuations of mangrove ecosystems to inform decision making and future valuation exercises," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/217963, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    6. Di Zio, Simone & Bolzan, Mario & Marozzi, Marco, 2021. "Classification of Delphi outputs through robust ranking and fuzzy clustering for Delphi-based scenarios," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    7. Shannon Li & Anne Honey & Francesca Coniglio & Peter Schaecken, 2022. "Mental Health Peer Worker Perspectives on Resources Developed from Lived Experience Research Findings: A Delphi Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(7), pages 1-15, March.
    8. Alyami, Saleh. H. & Rezgui, Yacine & Kwan, Alan, 2013. "Developing sustainable building assessment scheme for Saudi Arabia: Delphi consultation approach," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 43-54.
    9. Dana Hübelová & Martina Kuncová & Hana Vojáčková & Jitka Coufalová & Alice Kozumplíková & Francois Stefanus Lategan & Beatrice-Elena Chromková Manea, 2021. "Inequalities in Health: Methodological Approaches to Spatial Differentiation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(23), pages 1-21, November.
    10. Roudgarmi, Pezhman & Mahdiraji, Mohammad Taghi Amoozadeh, 2020. "Current Challenges of Laws for Preservation of Forest and Rangeland, Iran," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    11. Lingzhi Li & Jingfeng Yuan & Kathy O. Roper & Zhipeng Zhou, 2017. "A Multi-Stakeholder Delphi Study to Determine Key Space Management Components for Elderly Facilities in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-19, September.
    12. Evan Elderbrock & Chris Enright & Kathryn A. Lynch & Alexandra R. Rempel, 2020. "A Guide to Public Green Space Planning for Urban Ecosystem Services," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-23, October.
    13. Adriana Luciano & Federica Pascale & Francesco Polverino & Alison Pooley, 2020. "Measuring Age-Friendly Housing: A Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-35, January.
    14. Akartuna, Eray Arda & Johnson, Shane D. & Thornton, Amy, 2022. "Preventing the money laundering and terrorist financing risks of emerging technologies: An international policy Delphi study," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    15. Christoph Markmann & Alexander Spickermann & Heiko A. von der Gracht & Alexander Brem, 2021. "Improving the question formulation in Delphi‐like surveys: Analysis of the effects of abstract language and amount of information on response behavior," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 3(1), March.
    16. Antonelli, Marta & Basile, Linda & Gagliardi, Francesca & Isernia, Pierangelo, 2022. "The future of the Mediterranean agri-food systems: Trends and perspectives from a Delphi survey," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    17. Barnes, Stuart J. & Mattsson, Jan, 2016. "Understanding current and future issues in collaborative consumption: A four-stage Delphi study," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 200-211.
    18. Johannes I. F. Henning & Henry Jordaan, 2016. "Determinants of Financial Sustainability for Farm Credit Applications—A Delphi Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-15, January.
    19. Kosa Golić & Vesna Kosorić & Slavica Stamatovic Vuckovic & Kosara Kujundzic, 2023. "Strategies for Realization of Socially Sustainable Residential Buildings: Experts’ Perspectives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-31, April.
    20. Makkonen, Marika & Hujala, Teppo & Uusivuori, Jussi, 2016. "Policy experts' propensity to change their opinion along Delphi rounds," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 61-68.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0188348. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.