Unpredictable disease trajectories make early clarification of end-of-life (EoL) care preferences in older patients with multimorbidity advisable. This mixed methods systematic review synthesizes studies and assesses such preferences. Two independent reviewers screened title/abstracts/full texts in seven databases, extracted data and used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool to assess risk of bias (RoB). We synthesized findings from 22 studies (3243 patients) narratively and, where possible, quantitatively. Nineteen studies assessed willingness to receive life-sustaining treatments (LSTs), six, the preferred place of care, and eight, preferences regarding shared decision-making processes. When unspecified, 21% of patients in four studies preferred any LST option. In three studies, fewer patients chose LST when faced with death and deteriorating health, and more when treatment promised life extension. In 13 studies, 67% and 48% of patients respectively were willing to receive cardiopulmonary resuscitation and mechanical ventilation, but willingness decreased with deteriorating health. Further, 52% of patients from three studies wished to die at home. Seven studies showed that unless incapacitated, most patients prefer to decide on their EoL care themselves. High non-response rates meant RoB was high in most studies. Knowledge of EoL care preferences of older patients with multimorbidity increases the chance such care will be provided.

Background: Medical deserts are considered a problematic issue for many Western countries which try to employ multitude of policies and initiatives to achieve a better distribution of their health workforce (HWF). The aim of this study was to systematically map research and provide an overview of definitions, characteristics, contributing factors and approaches to mitigate medical deserts within the European Union (EU)-funded project "ROUTE-HWF" (a Roadmap OUT of mEdical deserts into supportive Health WorkForce initiatives and policies). Methods: We performed a scoping review to identify knowledge clusters/research gaps in the field of medical deserts focusing on HWF issues. Six databases were searched till June 2021. Studies reporting primary research from Western countries on definitions, characteristics, contributing factors, and approaches were included. Two independent reviewers assessed studies for eligibility, extracted data and clustered studies according to the four defined outcomes. Results: Two-hundred and forty studies were included (n=116, 48% Australia/New Zealand; n=105, 44% North America; n=20, 8% Europe). All used observational designs except for five quasi-experimental studies. Studies provided definitions (n=171, 71%), characteristics (n=95, 40%), contributing factors (n=112, 47%), and approaches to mitigate medical deserts (n=87, 36%). Most medical deserts were defined by the density of the population in an area. Contributing factors to HWF issues in medical deserts consisted in work-related (n=55, 23%) and lifestyle-related factors (n=33, 14%) of the HWF as well as sociodemographic characteristics (n=79, 33%). Approaches to mitigate them focused on training adapted to the scope of rural practice (n=67, 28%), HWF distribution (n=3, 1%), support/infrastructure (n=8, 3%) and innovative models of care (n=7, 3%). Conclusion: Our study provides the first scoping review that presents and categorizes definitions, characteristics, contributing factors, and approaches to mitigate HWF issues in medical deserts. We identified gaps such as the scarcity of longitudinal studies to investigate the impact of factors contributing to medical deserts, and interventional studies to evaluate the effectiveness of approaches to mitigate HWF issues.

Background: Half the US population uses drugs with anticholinergic properties. Their potential harms may outweigh their benefits. Amitriptyline is among the most frequently prescribed anticholinergic medicinal products, is used for multiple indications, and rated as strongly anticholinergic. Our objective was to explore and quantify (anticholinergic) adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in patients taking amitriptyline vs. placebo in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving adults and healthy individuals. Methods: We searched electronic databases from their inception until 09/2022, and clinical trial registries from their inception until 09/2022. We also performed manual reference searches. Two independent reviewers selected RCTs with ≥100 participants of ≥18 years, that compared amitriptyline (taken orally) versus placebo for all indications. No language restrictions were applied. One reviewer extracted study data, ADRs, and assessed study quality, which two others verified. The primary outcome was frequency of anticholinergic ADRs as a binary outcome (absolute number of patients with/without anticholinergic ADRs) in amitriptyline vs. placebo groups. Results: Twenty-three RCTs (mean dosage 5mg to 300mg amitriptyline/day) and 4217 patients (mean age 40.3 years) were included. The most frequently reported anticholinergic ADRs were dry mouth, drowsiness, somnolence, sedation, fatigue, constitutional, and unspecific anticholinergic ADRs. Random-effects meta-analyses showed anticholinergic ADRs had a higher odd’s ratio for amitriptyline versus placebo (OR = 7.41; [95% CI, 4.54 to 12.12]). Non-anticholinergic ADRs were as frequent for amitriptyline as placebo. Meta-regression analysis showed anticholinergic ADRs were not dose-dependent. Discussion: The large OR in our analysis shows that ADRs indicative of anticholinergic activities can be attributed to amitriptyline. The low average age of participants in our study may limit the generalizability of the frequency of anticholinergic ADRs in older patients. A lack of dose-dependency may reflect limited reporting of the daily dosage when the ADRs occurred. The exclusion of small studies (<100 participants) decreased heterogeneity between studies, but may also have reduced our ability to detect rare events. Future studies should focus on older people, as they are more susceptible to anticholinergic ADRs. Registration: PROSPERO: CRD42020111970.

Virtual communities of practice (vCoPs) facilitate online learning via the exchange of experiences and knowledge between interested participants. Compared to other communities, vCoPs need to overcome technological structures and specific barriers. Our objective was to pilot the acceptability and feasibility of a vCoP aimed at improving the attitudes of primary care professionals to the empowerment of patients with chronic conditions. We used a qualitative approach based on 2 focus groups: one composed of 6 general practitioners and the other of 6 practice nurses. Discussion guidelines on the topics to be investigated were provided to the moderator. Sessions were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis was performed using the ATLAS-ti software. The available operating systems and browsers and the lack of suitable spaces and time were reported as the main difficulties with the vCoP. The vCoP was perceived to be a flexible learning mode that provided up-to-date resources applicable to routine practice and offered a space for the exchange of experiences and approaches. The results from this pilot study show that the vCoP was considered useful for learning how to empower patients. However, while vCoPs have the potential to facilitate learning and as shown create professional awareness regarding patient empowerment, attention needs to be paid to technological and access issues and the time demands on professionals. We collected relevant inputs to improve the features, content and educational methods to be included in further vCoP implementation. ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT02757781 . Registered on 25 April 2016.

1) To analyse concordance between the level of risk classification using the Adjusted Groups Morbidity (GMA) tool and the assigned level of intervention by general practitioners (GP). 2) To study the usefulness of the GMA tool as an aid in electronic medical records (EMR) for decision making. Cross-sectional observational study of concordance. Primary Care. Madrid Health Service. Twenty eight GPs. A sample of 840 patients assigned to participating GPs was selected by disproportionate stratified random sampling (0.65 kappa, 0.125 precision, 5% positive rate, 95% confidence level). Weighted Cohen Kappa index for the degree of concordance between the GMA tool and the GPs. The usefulness of the tool was assessed using an ad hoc developed questionnaire. Kappa weighted index obtained was 0.60 (95%CI: 0.55-0.65). In 3% of cases the disagreement was maximum. The GPs found that the grouping tool had been useful in 76% of cases. Moderate strength/good concordance; incorporating a grouping tool in the EMR helps as a reminder for taking more proactive/integrated decisions based on social and health needs of people with chronic diseases.

Background: Unwanted anticholinergic effects are both underestimated and frequently overlooked. Failure to identify adverse drug reactions (ADRs) can lead to prescribing cascades and the unnecessary use of over-the-counter products. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to explore and quantify the frequency and severity of ADRs associated with amitriptyline vs. placebo in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving adults with any indication, as well as healthy individuals. Methods: A systematic search in six electronic databases, forward/backward searches, manual searches, and searches for Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) approval studies, will be performed. Placebo-controlled RCTs evaluating amitriptyline in any dosage, regardless of indication and without restrictions on the time and language of publication, will be included, as will healthy individuals. Studies of topical amitriptyline, combination therapies, or including < 100 participants, will be excluded. Two investigators will screen the studies independently, assess methodological quality, and extract data on design, population, intervention, and outcomes ((non-)anticholinergic ADRs, e.g., symptoms, test results, and adverse drug events (ADEs) such as falls). The primary outcome will be the frequency of anticholinergic ADRs as a binary outcome (absolute number of patients with/without anticholinergic ADRs) in amitriptyline vs. placebo groups. Anticholinergic ADRs will be defined by an experienced clinical pharmacologist, based on literature and data from Martindale: The Complete Drug Reference. Secondary outcomes will be frequency and severity of (non-)anticholinergic ADRs and ADEs. The information will be synthesized in meta-analyses and narratives. We intend to assess heterogeneity using meta-regression (for indication, outcome, and time points) and I² statistics. Binary outcomes will be expressed as odds ratios, and continuous outcomes as standardized mean differences. Effect measures will be provided using 95% confidence intervals. We plan sensitivity analyses to assess methodological quality, outcome reporting etc., and subgroup analyses on age, dosage, and duration of treatment. Discussion: We will quantify the frequency of anticholinergic and other ADRs/ADEs in adults taking amitriptyline for any indication by comparing rates for amitriptyline vs. placebo, hence, preventing bias from disease symptoms and nocebo effects. As no standardized instrument exists to measure it, our overall estimate of anticholinergic ADRs may have limitations. Systematic review registration: Submitted to PROSPERO; assignment is in progress.