Gnjidic D, Ong HMM, Leung C, Jansen J, Reeve E. The impact of in hospital patient-education intervention on older people’s attitudes and intention to have their benzodiazepines deprescribed: a feasibility study. Ther Adv Drug Saf. 2019;10:2042098618816562. Published 2019 Jan 17.
PubMed link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6351969/
| Methods | Study design: Randomised feasibility intervention study
Number of groups: 2 |
| Participants | Number of participants: 43 (1 withdrawal prior to randomisation)
Active group: 20 Control group: 22 Age: Median 71.5 (range 69-80) Sex: 23 female (55%) Participants with dementia: No Inclusion criteria: ≥65 years old Admitted to cardiology, renal, endocrine, general medicine, rheumatology, orthopaedic wards · ≥1 benzodiazepine on inpatient medication chart Exclusion criteria: unable to complete interview in English cognitive impairment isolated due to infection refused to participate Concomitant medicines: Median 11.0 (8.3 – 13.8) Country: Australia Setting: Large teaching hospital |
| Interventions | Medicine: Benzodiazepines
Intervention: Patients provided with ab patient-empowerment education booklet (EMPOWER brochure) and to discuss with their GP or community pharmacist Withdrawal schedule: Not described Comparator: Usual care |
| Outcomes | Discontinued benzodiazepine
Reasons for not discontinuing |
| Dates | Dates: Aug to Oct 2015
Follow-up duration: 1 month |
| Funding sources | Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and Australian Research Council Dementia Research Development Grant (investigator)
Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Dementia Leadership Fellowship (investigator) |
| Notes |
Risk of bias table
| Bias | Authors’ judgment | Support for judgment |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low | 1:1 randomisation using computer generated random digits (MS Excel RAND() function) |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | High | Not a concealed method of allocation |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) | High | Neither participants nor personnel blinded to allocation |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) | Unclear | Outcome assessors not described |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) | Low | High loss to follow-up however reasons are disclosed and outcomes and baseline data not significantly different between completers and non-completers |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Unclear | No protocol reported |
| Other bias |
Leave a Reply