Protocol for a process evaluation of an external pilot cluster randomised controlled trial of a theory-based intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy in older people in primary care: the PolyPrime study

Audrey Rankin, Gerard J Molloy, Cathal A Cadogan, Heather E Barry, Ashleigh Gorman, Cristín Ryan, Alan Ferrett, Pat McCarthy, Gerard J Gormley, Tom Fahey, Carmel M Hughes, PolyPrime team, Audrey Rankin, Gerard J Molloy, Cathal A Cadogan, Heather E Barry, Ashleigh Gorman, Cristín Ryan, Alan Ferrett, Pat McCarthy, Gerard J Gormley, Tom Fahey, Carmel M Hughes, PolyPrime team

Abstract

Background: The PolyPrime intervention is a theory-based intervention aimed at improving appropriate polypharmacy in older people (aged ≥65 years) in primary care. The intervention consists of an online video which demonstrates how general practitioners (GPs) can prescribe appropriate polypharmacy during a consultation with an older patient and a patient recall process, whereby patients are invited to scheduled medication review consultations with GPs. The aim of the process evaluation is to further examine the implementation of the PolyPrime intervention in primary care. This will involve investigating whether the PolyPrime intervention can be delivered as intended across two healthcare systems, how acceptable the intervention is to GPs, practice staff and patients, and to identify the intervention's likely mechanisms of action.

Methods: The PolyPrime study is an external pilot cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) which aims to recruit 12 GP practices across Northern Ireland [NI] (n=6) and the six counties in the Republic of Ireland (ROI) that border NI (n=6). Practices have been randomised to intervention or usual care. An embedded process evaluation will assess intervention fidelity (i.e. was the intervention delivered as intended), acceptability of the intervention to GPs, practice staff and patients and potential mechanisms of action (i.e. what components of the intervention were perceived to be effective). Quantitative data will be collected from data collection forms completed by GPs and practice staff and a feedback questionnaire completed by patients from intervention arm practices, which will be analysed using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data will be collected through semi-structured interviews with GPs and practice staff and audio-recordings of medication review appointments from the intervention arm practices which will be transcribed and analysed using the framework method. Quantitative and qualitative data will be triangulated to provide an overall assessment of intervention fidelity, intervention acceptability, and mechanisms of action.

Discussion: This process evaluation will add to feasibility data from the pilot cRCT by providing evidence on the fidelity of implementing the intervention package across two healthcare systems, the acceptability of the intervention and potential mechanisms of action.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ISRCTN41009897 . Registered on 19 November 2019. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04181879 . Registered 02 December 2019.

Keywords: Behaviour change; Complex intervention; General practice; Older people; Polypharmacy; Primary care; Process evaluation.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

© 2021. The Author(s).

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Overview of the PolyPrime study and process evaluation activities. *The follow-up time points for the control arm will be based on the average length of time from the completion of baseline data collection to 6 and 9 months post initial medication review in the intervention arm. **Process evaluation activities—counts of GP viewing online video, weekly practice meetings to discuss medication reviews, scheduling of appointments and prompts given to GPs by practice staff to conduct medication reviews. ***Process evaluation activities—semi-structured interviews with GPs and practice staff after medication review 2. NI-Northern Ireland; ROI Republic of Ireland

References

    1. Cadogan CA, Ryan C, Hughes CM. Appropriate polypharmacy and medicine safety: when many is not too many. Drug Saf. 2016;39(2):109–116. doi: 10.1007/s40264-015-0378-5.
    1. The King’s Fund . Polypharmacy and medicines optimisation: making it safe and sound. 2013.
    1. Cadogan CA, Ryan C, Hughes C. Making the case for change: what researchers need to consider when designing behavior change interventions aimed at improving medication dispensing. Res Soc Adm Pharm. 2016;12(1):149–153. doi: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2015.04.002.
    1. Hughes CM, Cadogan CA, Patton D, Ryan CA. Pharmaceutical strategies towards optimising polypharmacy in older people. Int J Pharm. 2016;512(2):360–365. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2016.02.035.
    1. Hughes CM, Cadogan CA, Ryan CA. Development of a pharmacy practice intervention: lessons from the literature. Int J Clin Pharm. 2016;38(3):601–606. doi: 10.1007/s11096-015-0180-6.
    1. Rankin A, Cadogan C, Ryan C, Clyne B, Smith SM, Hughes C. Interventions to improve the appropriate use of polypharmacy for older people. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;9:CD008165. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008165.pub4.
    1. French SD, Green SE, O’Connor DA, McKenzie JE, Francis JJ, Michie S, et al. Developing theory-informed behaviour change interventions to implement evidence into practice: a systematic approach using the Theoretical Domains Framework. Implement Sci. 2012;7(1):38. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-7-38.
    1. Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M. Medical Research Council Guidance. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2008;337:a1655. doi: 10.1136/bmj.a1655.
    1. Moore GF, Audrey S, Barker M, Bond L, Bonell C, Hardeman W, Moore L, O'Cathain A, Tinati T, Wight D, Baird J. Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2015;350(mar19 6):h1258. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h1258.
    1. Cadogan CA, Ryan C, Francis JJ, Gormley GJ, Passmore P, Kerse N, Hughes CM. Improving appropriate polypharmacy for older people in primary care: selecting components of an evidence-based intervention to target prescribing and dispensing. Implement Sci. 2015;10(1):161. doi: 10.1186/s13012-015-0349-3.
    1. Cadogan CA, Ryan C, Francis JJ, Gormley GJ, Passmore P, Kerse N, Hughes CM. Development of an intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy in older people in primary care using a theory-based method. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016;16(1):661. doi: 10.1186/s12913-016-1907-3.
    1. Cadogan CA, Ryan C, Gormley GJ, Francis JJ, Passmore P, Kerse N, et al. A feasibility study of a theory-based intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy for older people in primary care. Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2017;4:23. doi: 10.1186/s40814-017-0166-3.
    1. Michie S, Richardson M, Johnston M, Abraham C, Francis J, Hardeman W, Eccles MP, Cane J, Wood CE. The behavior change technique taxonomy (v1) of 93 hierarchically clustered techniques: building an international consensus for the reporting of behavior change interventions. Ann Behav Med. 2013;46(1):81–95. doi: 10.1007/s12160-013-9486-6.
    1. Rankin A, Cadogan CA, Barry HE, Gardner E, Agus A, Molloy GJ, et al. An external pilot cluster randomised controlled trial of a theory-based intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy in older people in primary care (PolyPrime): study protocol. Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2021;7:77. doi: 10.1186/s40814-021-00822-2.
    1. Gorman A, Rankin A, Barry H, Cadogan C, Gormley G, Fahey T, et al. A qualitative study to refine a theory-based intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy in older people in primary care. Int J Pharm Pract. 2020;28(Suppl 1):12.
    1. Eldridge SM, Chan CL, Campbell MJ, Bond CM, Hopewell S, Thabane L, et al. CONSORT 2010 statement: extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials. BMJ. 2016;355:i5239. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i5239.
    1. Oakley A, Strange V, Bonell C, Allen E, Stephenson J. Process evaluation in randomised controlled trials of complex interventions. BMJ. 2006;332(7538):413–416. doi: 10.1136/bmj.332.7538.413.
    1. Bellg AJ, Borrelli B, Resnick B, Hecht J, Minicucci DS, Ory M, Ogedegbe G, Orwig D, Ernst D, Czajkowski S, Treatment Fidelity Workgroup of the NIH Behavior Change Consortium Treatment Fidelity Workgroup of the NIH Behavior Change Consortium. Enhancing treatment fidelity in health behavior change studies: best practices and recommendations from the NIH Behavior Change Consortium. Health Psychol. 2004;23(5):443–451. doi: 10.1037/0278-6133.23.5.443.
    1. Borrelli B, Sepinwall D, Ernst D, Bellg AJ, Czajkowski S, Breger R, DeFrancesco C, Levesque C, Sharp DL, Ogedegbe G, Resnick B, Orwig D. A new tool to assess treatment fidelity and evaluation of treatment fidelity across 10 years of health behavior research. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2005;73(5):852–860. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.73.5.852.
    1. Moore G, Audrey S, Barker M, Bond L, Bonell C, Cooper C, Hardeman W, Moore L, O'Cathain A, Tinati T, Wight D, Baird J. Process evaluation in complex public health intervention studies: the need for guidance. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2014;68(2):101–102. doi: 10.1136/jech-2013-202869.
    1. Diepeveen S, Ling T, Suhrcke M, Roland M, Marteau TM. Public acceptability of government intervention to change health-related behaviours: a systematic review and narrative synthesis. BMC Public Health. 2013;13(1):756. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-13-756.
    1. Sekhon M, Cartwright M, Francis JJ. Acceptability of healthcare interventions: an overview of reviews and development of a theoretical framework. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17:1–3. doi: 10.1186/s12913-017-2031-8.
    1. Sekhon M, Cartwright M, Francis JJ. Acceptability of health care interventions: A theoretical framework and proposed research agenda. Br J Health Psychol. 2018;23(3):519–531. doi: 10.1111/bjhp.12295.
    1. Sekhon M, Cartwright M, Francis J. Application of a theoretical framework to assess intervention acceptability: a semi-structured interview study. Eur Health Psychol. 2016;18:565.
    1. Bonell C, Fletcher A, Morton M, Lorenc T, Moore L. Realist randomised controlled trials: a new approach to evaluating complex public health interventions. Soc Sci Med. 2012;75(12):2299–2306. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.08.032.
    1. Linnan L, Steckler A. Process evaluation for public health interventions and research. An overview. In: Steckler A, Linnan L, editors. Process evaluation for public health interventions and research. San Francisco: Josset-Bass; 2002. pp. 1–23.
    1. Bandura A. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company; 1997.
    1. Carey RN, Connell LE, Johnston M, Rothman AJ, de Bruin M, Kelly MP, Michie S. Behavior change techniques and their mechanisms of action: a synthesis of links described in published intervention literature. Ann Behav Med. 2019;53(8):693–707. doi: 10.1093/abm/kay078.
    1. Gale NK, Heath G, Cameron E, Rashid S, Redwood S. Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13(1):117. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-13-117.
    1. Ritchie J, Spencer L. Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In: Bryman A, Burgess TG, editors. Analysing qualitative data. London: Routledge; 1994. pp. 173–194.
    1. Farmer T, Robinson K, Elliott SJ, Eyles J. Developing and implementing a triangulation protocol for qualitative health research. Qual Health Res. 2006;16(3):377–394. doi: 10.1177/1049732305285708.
    1. Miles MB, Huberman AM. Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. 2. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1994.

Source: PubMed

3
Abonner