↓ Skip to main content

Pharmacist-led medication assessment and deprescribing intervention for older adults with cancer and polypharmacy: a pilot study

Overview of attention for article published in Supportive Care in Cancer, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
27 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
93 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
170 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Pharmacist-led medication assessment and deprescribing intervention for older adults with cancer and polypharmacy: a pilot study
Published in
Supportive Care in Cancer, June 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00520-018-4281-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrew Whitman, Kathlene DeGregory, Amy Morris, Supriya Mohile, Erika Ramsdale

Abstract

The aims of this study were to compare the application of three geriatric medication screening tools to the Beers Criteria alone for potentially inappropriate medication quantification and to determine feasibility of a pharmacist-led polypharmacy assessment in a geriatric oncology clinic. Adult patients with cancer aged 65 and older underwent a comprehensive geriatric assessment. A polypharmacy assessment was completed by a pharmacist and included a review of all drug therapies. Potentially inappropriate medications were screened using the Beers Criteria, Screening Tool to Alert doctors to Right Treatment/Screening Tool of Older Persons' Prescriptions, and the Medication Appropriateness Index. Deprescribing occurred after discussion with the pharmacist, geriatric oncologist, patient, and caregiver. Data were collected for 26 patients. The mean number of medications was 12. The Beers Criteria alone identified 38 potentially inappropriate medications compared to 119 potentially inappropriate medications with the three-tool assessment; a mean of 5 potentially inappropriate medications were identified per patient. After the application of the three-tool assessment, 73% of potentially inappropriate medications identified were deprescribed, resulting in a mean of 3 medications deprescribed per patient. Approximately two thirds of patients reported a reduction in symptoms after the deprescribing intervention. Healthcare expenditures of $4282.27 per patient were potentially avoided as a result of deprescribing. Our three-tool assessment identified three times more potentially inappropriate medications than the Beers Criteria alone. Pharmacist-led deprescribing interventions are feasible and may lead to improved patient outcomes and cost savings. This three-tool assessment process should be incorporated into interdisciplinary assessments of older patients with cancer and validated in future studies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 170 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 170 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 29 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 8%
Researcher 12 7%
Other 11 6%
Other 29 17%
Unknown 57 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 40 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 38 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 8%
Social Sciences 5 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 1%
Other 16 9%
Unknown 55 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 February 2023.
All research outputs
#1,223,383
of 25,391,471 outputs
Outputs from Supportive Care in Cancer
#111
of 5,054 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,979
of 337,187 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Supportive Care in Cancer
#2
of 109 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,391,471 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,054 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 337,187 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 109 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.