IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v11y2018i1d10.1007_s40271-017-0258-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Patient Values and Preferences Surrounding Proton Pump Inhibitor Use: A Scoping Review

Author

Listed:
  • Wade Thompson

    (University of Ottawa
    Bruyère Research Institute)

  • Cody Black

    (University of Ottawa
    Bruyère Research Institute)

  • Vivian Welch

    (University of Ottawa
    Bruyère Research Institute
    Centre for Global Health)

  • Barbara Farrell

    (Bruyère Research Institute
    University of Ottawa)

  • Lise M. Bjerre

    (University of Ottawa
    Bruyère Research Institute
    University of Ottawa)

  • Peter Tugwell

    (University of Ottawa
    Bruyère Research Institute
    Centre for Global Health
    Ottawa Hospital Research Institute)

Abstract

Background Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) treat various upper gastrointestinal (GI) diseases. Around 50% of patients may remain on PPIs long-term without ongoing need. Eligible patients should be offered the choice of continuing their PPI or trying to reduce/stop their PPI (deprescribing), a choice dependent on values and preferences. Objectives Our objective was to systematically scope the available evidence on patient values and preferences surrounding continued PPI treatment and/or the decision to try a reduction in their PPI. We searched the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases and the grey literature as of 9 August 2016 for studies of any design examining patient values and preferences toward PPI treatment and/or deprescribing. We included patients aged ≥18 years taking PPIs for upper GI diseases. Results We located 12 eligible studies (seven surveys, four qualitative studies, one randomized controlled trial). One study only examined values and preferences towards reducing PPI use, five studies looked only at PPI treatment (initiation/continuation), four studies assessed both PPI treatment and reduction, and two studies evaluated PPI treatment and switching (to alternative PPIs). Patients value symptom control highly and worry about symptoms returning if the PPI is reduced. They are encouraged to consider reducing their PPI if a clinician provides advice and education. All five studies that examined reducing PPI use suggest patients should understand the rationale for considering continuation versus deprescribing of PPIs and should know what to expect from deprescribing. Patients are encouraged by knowing they can return to their previous dose if necessary. Our results were limited by the small sizes of studies and the heterogeneous populations. Conclusion Patients are willing to discuss the option of continuing PPI use or trying to reduce their PPI; however, a range of attitudes exist. The results suggest that reducing a PPI is a preference-sensitive decision. Therefore, patient attitudes should be elicited and incorporated into shared decision making surrounding the decision to continue or try deprescribing a PPI, and structured tools will be helpful to encourage this.

Suggested Citation

  • Wade Thompson & Cody Black & Vivian Welch & Barbara Farrell & Lise M. Bjerre & Peter Tugwell, 2018. "Patient Values and Preferences Surrounding Proton Pump Inhibitor Use: A Scoping Review," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 11(1), pages 17-28, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:11:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1007_s40271-017-0258-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-017-0258-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-017-0258-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40271-017-0258-4?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Boath, Elizabeth H. & Blenkinsopp, Alison, 1997. "The rise and rise of proton pump inhibitor drugs: Patients' perspectives," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 45(10), pages 1571-1579, November.
    2. Pollock, K. & Grime, J., 2000. "Strategies for reducing the prescribing of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs): patient self-regulation of treatment may be an under-exploited resource," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 51(12), pages 1827-1839, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Gibson, Mark & Neil Jenkings, K. & Wilson, Rob & Purves, Ian, 2006. "Verbal prescribing in general practice consultations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(6), pages 1684-1698, September.
    2. Anne Hvenegaard & Henrik Juhl & Andreas Habicht, 2012. "Does participation in clinical trials influence the costs of future management of patients?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 13(5), pages 569-574, October.
    3. Fraeyman, Jessica & Symons, Linda & De Loof, Hans & De Meyer, Guido R.Y. & Remmen, Roy & Beutels, Philippe & Van Hal, Guido, 2015. "Medicine price awareness in chronic patients in Belgium," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(2), pages 217-223.
    4. Pound, Pandora & Britten, Nicky & Morgan, Myfanwy & Yardley, Lucy & Pope, Catherine & Daker-White, Gavin & Campbell, Rona, 2005. "Resisting medicines: a synthesis of qualitative studies of medicine taking," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 133-155, July.

    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:spr:patien:v:11:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1007_s40271-017-0258-4. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.