The medication self-management work system of patients and informal carers from a human factors &amp; ergonomics perspective: A scoping review&nbsp;protocol

Eduard Negoescu; Romaric Marcilly; Samuel Cromie; Aaron Koay; Tamasine Grimes

doi:10.12688/hrbopenres.13674.1

Home Browse The medication self-management work system of patients and informal...

ALL Metrics

-

Views

37

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Study Protocol

The medication self-management work system of patients and informal carers from a human factors & ergonomics perspective: A scoping review protocol

[version 1; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations]

Eduard Negoescu¹, Romaric Marcilly^2,3, Samuel Cromie⁴, Aaron Koay^1,5, Tamasine Grimes ¹

Eduard Negoescu¹, Romaric Marcilly^2,3, [...] Samuel Cromie⁴, Aaron Koay^1,5, Tamasine Grimes ¹

PUBLISHED 10 Jan 2023

Author details Author details

¹ School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Panoz Institute, Trinity College Dublin, The University of Dublin, Dublin, D02 PN40, Ireland
² Univ. Lille, CHU Lille, ULR 2694 - METRICS : Évaluation des technologies de santé et des pratiques médicales, Lille, F-59000, France
³ INSERM, CIC-IT 1403, Lille, F-59000, France
⁴ Centre for Innovative Human Systems (CIHS), School of Psychology, Aras an Phiarsaigh, Trinity College Dublin, The University of Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
⁵ Institute for Global Health, University College London, London, WC1N 1EH, UK

Eduard Negoescu
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Romaric Marcilly
Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Samuel Cromie
Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Aaron Koay
Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Tamasine Grimes
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

This article is included in the Public and Patient Involvement collection.

Abstract

Background: Healthcare is increasingly delivered closer to the patients’ homes, which increases the level of responsibility that patients and informal carers take for managing their medication-taking, although this is associated with hazards. Medication self-management has been conceptualised as work taking place in non-formal settings (e.g., households), which are complex systems. Human factors and ergonomics (HFE) models provide a framework for studying such systems. The Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) is one framework that considers work system elements and how they interact with each other to shape processes that lead to outcomes (e.g., safety). Given the increasing amount of diverse research on patient and carer work and on system-shaping factors, the objectives of this review are to: (i) identify available evidence in a structured and systems-oriented way, (ii) explore approaches that have been applied and (iii) highlight research gaps.
Methods: An evidence-informed patient, public and carer involvement (PPCI) approach will be implemented at all post-protocol stages to ensure the relevance, uptake and translation of the scoping review. The review will systematically search MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo, CINAHL and Web of Science to identify relevant qualitative studies. The methodological approach will be guided by Johanna Briggs Institute methodology and will be reported according to the PRISMA-ScR standards. Data charting and qualitative content analysis directed by SEIPS will explore how the work system and its constituting elements have been described in the literature and identify specific gaps and opportunities for future research. Borrowing from realist approaches, included studies will be assessed in terms of richness and relevance to our review question.
Discussion: Strengths of this scoping review include PPCI and a converging focus on medication safety, medication self-management and HFE. Ultimately, this approach will advance our understanding of this complex system and guide opportunities to broaden and strengthen the evidence base.

Keywords

Human factors and ergonomics, household, patient, drug therapy, medication error, systems-based analysis, patient and public involvement, PPI

Corresponding author: Tamasine Grimes

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: TG is the Principal Investigator on the Irish Research Council and Health Research Board Ulysses Award 2020. This work was also supported by the French Ministries of Europe and Foreign Affairs and of Higher Education, Research and Innovation. EN is supported by the Provost’s PhD Award 2019 awarded by Trinity College Dublin.
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Copyright: © 2023 Negoescu E et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite: Negoescu E, Marcilly R, Cromie S et al. The medication self-management work system of patients and informal carers from a human factors & ergonomics perspective: A scoping review protocol [version 1; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. HRB Open Res 2023, 6:4 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13674.1) First published: 10 Jan 2023, 6:4 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13674.1) Latest published: 10 Jan 2023, 6:4 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13674.1)

Introduction

There is a global drive to deliver healthcare as close to home as appropriate^1,2, and to reduce exposure to unnecessary hospital admission. In this context, patients and their carers are taking on increasing levels of responsibility and burden of medication management^3,4. Both positive and negative outcomes have been associated with lay medication practices in the home. For example, patients may sometimes successfully and conveniently integrate medication work into the structure of their daily lives³. However, many hazards have been identified, including the sharing of prescribed medication^5,6, non-adherence⁷, hoarding⁸, unsafe storage⁹, inappropriate disposal¹⁰, inappropriate dosage¹¹ and errors made by patients and their carers^12,13.

This medication management by patients or their carers has been conceptualised as work, that is, effort expended to complete tasks associated with all aspects of medication use to achieve the desired beneficial effects and reduce the likelihood of undesirable effects^3,4,14. Such medication work is self-managed in non-formal settings (e.g., households), which are complex systems that can be explored using human factors and ergonomics (HFE) approaches. HFE seeks to understand how people and other elements within a system interact¹⁵, and to apply systems-thinking models to “optimise human well-being and overall system performance”¹⁶. The Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) is one such model¹⁷. SEIPS considers how work system elements (people, tools, tasks, technologies, environments and their organisation) and the interaction between these elements shape work processes (at social, physical or cognitive levels), which in turn produce work outcomes that may strengthen or weaken safety. For instance, SEIPS has been used to explore household medication safety^14,18. Further, a recent scoping review exploring contributory factors related to patient work identified a substantial number of publications on the topic of medication management⁴, indicating that a dedicated review adopting a HFE perspective on the topic is needed.

Therefore, given the increasing body of work that patients and informal carers perform to self-manage medication in non-formal settings, there is a need to gather the evidence about this work in a structured, systems-oriented way, in order to identify research gaps and opportunities to advance research, policy and practice.

The present need for research

Preliminary searches suggested the current body of literature is heterogenous, which reflects a need to unify and structure this knowledge to take a considerate HFE approach to study lay medication management. Moreover, the increasing prevalence and global burden of polypharmacy¹⁹ add complexity to the work carried out by patients and carers in managing their medication. Finally, the need to research lay medication management is emphasised by the fact that pre-existing health inequalities can widen even more during public health emergencies such as the COVID-19 pandemic²⁰, as evidenced by outcomes such as medication-related harm.

Objectives

This scoping review aims to describe and categorise the available evidence about non-formal medication self-management work systems. The scoping review aims to (i) use a HFE perspective to identify and structure studies about medication self-management as practiced by patients and informal carers in non-formal settings, (ii) to explore the data analytical approach applied in these studies and (iii) to identify gaps in the available body of evidence and opportunities for future research.

Methods

Patient, public and carer involvement

Patient, public and carer involvement (PPCI) in research is important to optimise the relevance and meaning of the research to those affected by the topic and to increase the uptake and translation of research into sustainable practice^21,22. PPCI supports stakeholders, such as end users and professional or non-professional providers, to have parity with researchers. This helps stakeholders, patients and carers maintain a central status in the three domains of quality in healthcare, namely clinical effectiveness, patient safety and patient experience^23,24.

This scoping review will incorporate and report on PPCI in line with the Authors and Consumers Together Impacting on eVidencE (ACTIVE) framework²². Contributors will be invited to participate on a continuous basis at the following stages: selection of studies, data collection, qualitative analysis, interpretation of findings, writing and publishing, knowledge translation and impact, including outreach activities and the co-design of lay summary materials. A suitable level of engagement (leading, controlling, influencing, contributing or receiving) will be jointly decided with PPCI contributors identified on each occasion, having regard to their preferences and the resources available at each stage. Training will be provided to support the learning needs required to meet the tasks.

Protocol development

The methodological approach is informed by scoping review guidelines published by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI)²⁵ and by recommendations on implementing PPCI according to the ACTIVE framework²². Further, the reporting of this protocol observes the items on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist that are relevant to a protocol²⁶. Additionally, a PRISMA extension for protocols (PRISMA-P) checklist²⁷ has been completed (access is detailed in the Data Availability section²⁸).

Eligibility criteria

The eligibility criteria were developed around a modified version of the PCC tool (participants, concept, context)²⁵, presented below. Relevant peer-reviewed primary studies will be included while secondary studies will not, although references cited therein will be screened. This approach will help prevent inadvertent double counting of data originating from primary studies²⁵. There is no restriction on the date of study publication. We will attempt to translate studies published in languages other than English.

Participants. Studies with a primary focus on lay participants such as patients and their non-professional carers (e.g., family members or laypeople who may or may not have received training) will be included. Studies focusing on healthcare practitioners, formally employed caregivers or professional carers will be excluded.

Concept. Studies addressing any aspect of medication self-management are eligible for inclusion. For the purpose of this review, we consider medication self-management as any task undertaken by the patient, or their carer, for the purpose of using their medication, at any stage of the medication management process. Medication will be defined as an authorised allopathic product that may be prescribed or non-prescribed (available over-the-counter).

Context. Studies exclusively addressing household, domestic or other non-formal healthcare settings will be included. Studies that have an element of professional or semi-professional service provision will be excluded.

Study design. Eligible studies will include those that analysed or presented qualitative data by considering principles of human factors or ergonomics, systems engineering, sociotechnical or socioecological systems, or other relevant theories or frameworks, which enabled the identification of at least one of the following concepts: work system elements (e.g., people, environments, tasks, tools, technologies), work processes (e.g., obtaining supply, administering, monitoring), work outcomes (e.g., humanistic, organisational, clinical or economic) and factors (facilitators and barriers to safe and effective medicines management) associated with the work system.

Information sources

Five databases will be used to retrieve relevant literature, namely MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo, CINAHL and Web of Science.

Search strategy

The search strategy, shown in Table 1, was constructed for the MEDLINE and Embase databases using the Embase interface and was endorsed by a subject librarian. The systematic search will be tailored to the interface for PsycINFO, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Web of Science.

Table 1. Combined search strategy adapted for the MEDLINE and Embase databases through the Embase interface.

Concepts (combined with the ‘AND’ operator)	Search terms
Laypeople	lay:ab,ti,kw OR layperson$:ab,ti,kw OR laypeople:ab,ti,kw OR ((lay NEAR/1 people$):ti,ab,kw) OR patient$:ti,ab,kw OR sufferer$:ti,ab,kw OR carer$:ab,ti,kw OR partner$:ti,ab,kw OR family:ti,ab,kw OR families:ti,ab,kw OR 'laypeople'/exp OR 'caregiver'/exp OR 'layperson'/exp OR 'patient'/exp OR ‘family’/exp OR ‘family relation’/exp
Non-professional settings	household:ab,ti,kw OR domicil:ab,ti,kw OR dwelling$:ti,ab,kw OR apartment$:ti,ab,kw OR house$:ti,ab,kw OR ((personal NEAR/1 space$):ti,ab,kw) OR abode*:ti,ab,kw OR home$:ti,ab,kw OR residence$:ti,ab,kw OR ((non NEAR/1 professional$ NEAR/1 setting$):ti,ab,kw) OR ‘household’/exp OR ‘community dwelling person’/exp OR ‘personal space’/exp OR ‘residence’/exp
Medication	medication$:ab,ti,kw OR medicine$:ab,ti,kw OR drug$:ab,ti,kw OR pharmacotherap*:ab,ti,kw OR prescription$:ti,ab,kw OR (over NEAR/2 counter):ti,ab,kw OR remedy:ti,ab,kw OR remedies:ti,ab,kw OR 'drug therapy'/exp OR 'drug administration'/exp OR 'prescription'/exp OR 'prescription drug'/exp OR 'non prescription drug'/exp
Study design: data to be presented or analysed using human factors and ergonomics perspectives	((system$ NEAR/1 engineering NEAR/1 initiative$ NEAR/1 for NEAR/1 patient$ NEAR/1 safety):ab,ti,kw) OR SEIPS:ti,ab,kw OR ((structure$ NEAR/1 process NEAR/1 outcome$):ti,ab,kw) OR ((system$ NEAR/1 thinking): ti,ab,kw) OR ((system$ NEAR/1 analys?s):ab,ti,kw) OR ((human NEAR/1 factor$):ab,ti,kw) OR ergonomic$: ab,ti,kw OR ((work NEAR/1 system$):ab,ti,kw) OR ((medication NEAR/1 work):ab,ti,kw) OR sociotechnical: ab,ti,kw OR ((socio NEAR/1 technical):ti,ab,kw) OR ((socio NEAR/1 ecological):ti,ab,kw) OR socioecological: ti,kw,ab OR macroergonomic$:ab,ti,kw OR mesoergonomic$:ab,ti,kw OR microergonomic$:ab,ti,kw OR ((system$ NEAR/1 engineering):ab,ti,kw) OR barrier$:ab,ti,kw OR impediment$:ab,ti,kw OR obstacle$: ti,ab,kw OR facilitator$:ti,ab,kw OR enabler$:ti,ab,kw OR 'human factor'/exp OR 'human factors'/exp OR 'human factors research'/exp OR 'human factors engineering'/exp OR 'ergonomics'/exp OR 'sociotechnical system'/exp OR ‘socioecological model’/exp OR ‘systems theory’/exp OR ‘system analysis’/exp OR 'macroergonomics'/exp OR 'barriers'/exp OR ‘obstacles’/ exp OR 'facilitator'/exp

Each search string will focus on four key concepts: 1) medication use; 2) by a population of patients or informal carers; 3) within non-formal settings; as reported by 4) studies related to the field of HFE which can provide details around work systems, processes and outcomes. The four strings will be combined with the ‘AND’ operator to yield relevant results.

Selection of studies

Search results from each database will be uploaded to EndNote (Clarivate, London, UK) and de-duplicated. This body of citations will be imported to the Covidence systematic review software (Veritas Health Innovation, Melbourne, Australia), where further de-duplication and screening will be performed. All reviewers will independently review a proportion of titles and abstracts to ensure a common understanding of the application of eligibility criteria. In round one, two reviewers will then independently screen each study by title and abstract. Selected studies from round one will advance to round two where two reviewers will independently screen the article full text to determine final eligibility. Where differences in opinion arise or when a decision cannot be made at either round one or two, consensus will be reached ideally by discussion or through arbitration by another reviewer. A PRISMA flow diagram detailing study selection will be presented in the review²⁶.

Data charting process

The review will employ the SEIPS model¹⁷ to structure the charting of reported work system elements (persons, tasks, tools, internal and external environments, organisation), work processes and work outcomes.

A predefined list of elements, shown below, will be used to chart data²⁵. Data charting will be piloted on three included studies independently by two authors and will be iteratively adapted to ensure all relevant items are collected²⁵. One reviewer will then undertake data charting on the remaining studies. When 10% of studies are charted, a cross-check will be performed by a second reviewer to ensure all meaningful semantic units were charted and classified appropriately, and to enable early diagnosis and repair of issues. If inconsistencies arise, a subsequent cross-check will be performed when 25% of all studies are charted. Should discrepancies persist, all included studies will be cross-checked.

The data charting form will record the following elements, which will be analysed to meet the corresponding review objectives²⁵:

1. Study characteristics including country and date of publication, study aims, design, sample size and participant characteristics,
2. Methodological details related to the use of conceptual or theoretical frameworks or methods of data analysis or synthesis,
3. Data that have been analysed or presented from a human factors or systems-based perspective, and which relate to medication self-management as practised by patients and informal carers in non-formal settings. This includes data relevant to work systems, processes, outcomes and related factors (facilitators and barriers),
4. Reported knowledge gaps and recommendations for future work.

Data analysis

Descriptive statistics will be used to characterise the body of studies (e.g., date and place of publication and participant demographics) and will be carried out using Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, Washington). Further, the analytical approaches applied in the included studies will be described.

Basic deductive qualitative content analysis²⁵, directed by the SEIPS model, will be employed to report a list of the work system elements, interactions and outcomes reported in the body of studies, thereby exploring medication self-management as practiced by patients and informal carers. This will also facilitate the identification of research gaps in the current body of evidence and opportunities for future research. An appropriate data analysis/management tool e.g., Microsoft Excel or NVivo (QSR International) will be used to support qualitative data analysis and management.

Included studies will be assessed during data charting in terms of their richness (adequacy of data in the included studies) and relevance (the degree of fit of the included studies to our review questions). Borrowing from the realist paradigm and guidance for assessing the confidence in evidence from reviews of qualitative research²⁹, a five-point richness scale will be used to estimate the depth of theoretical application of human factors theories and perspectives, and a five-point relevance scale will be used to determine how relevant each study is to our review objectives. This assessment of richness and relevance will complement the above-mentioned method in meeting the objective to identify research gaps and direct future studies.

This deductive coding approach may not accommodate all charted data, as some may fall outside of SEIPS categories, including data that can help contextualise phenomena³⁰. Nevertheless, this can be addressed by accommodating inductive approaches that are sensitive enough, especially with respect to subsequent analyses of these data.

Data presentation

Charted data units will be aggregated and analysed. Findings related to the categorisation of data will be presented in a tabulated form for each research objective. Gaps in the available body of evidence and opportunities for future research will be identified by deductively coding the data using SEIPS and then mapping the aggregated coded data against SEIPS²⁵. Descriptive summaries will accompany each resulting data set and will respond to each research question.

Risk of bias and quality assessment

Consistent with guidance for scoping reviews, which aim to describe, summarise and present available data²⁵, quality or risk of bias assessments about how well each included study addressed its objective will not be performed.

Research ethics committee approval

Approval from a research ethics committee is not necessary in line with scoping review methodology, because the data being used are available in the public domain.

Study status

The literature search has been completed and screening by title and abstract is underway.

Discussion

This scoping review aims to describe and categorise the available evidence about non-formal medication self-management work systems. Using the SEIPS model¹⁷, the scoping review will map the available evidence to describe each concept e.g., work system elements, the relevant processes and resulting outcomes, the relevance and the richness of the available data to address the research objectives, and will facilitate the identification of research gaps and opportunities for future work. The findings will inform whether a future systematic review or primary studies would best contribute to the construction or validation of a framework to support research and development about a systems-based analysis of non-formal medication self-management.

The proposed review has a number of strengths. The suggested PPCI approach will enhance the likelihood that patients and their representatives are at the centre of the review, that the research is relevant and meaningful and that it will be utilised to inform subsequent research, policy or practice. Adherence to the ACTIVE framework²² will enhance the PPCI approach employed. The review team have experience across the relevant fields of medication management, medication safety, human factors and ergonomics, and systematic reviewing. The convergence of these and the PPCI experiences will enhance the rigour of the data charting and interpretation.

Data availability

Underlying data

No data are associated with this article.

Reporting guidelines

Zenodo: PRISMA-P checklist for ‘The Medication Self-Management Work System of Patients and Informal Carers from a Human Factors & Ergonomics Perspective: A Scoping Review Protocol’. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7463641²⁸.

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0).

Faculty Opinions recommended

References

1. Zayas-Cabán T, Flatley Brennan P: Human factors in home care. Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics in Health Care and Patient Safety. Edited by Carayon P. Mahwah, New Jersey: Erlbaum, 2007.
2. Aliotta S, Andre J: Case management and home health care: an integrated model. Home Health Care Manag Pract. 1997; 9(2): 1–12. Publisher Full Text
3. Cheraghi-Sohi S, Jeffries M, Stevenson F, et al.: The influence of personal communities on the self-management of medication taking: A wider exploration of medicine work. Chronic Illn. 2015; 11(2): 77–92. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
4. Yin K, Jung J, Coiera E, et al.: Patient Work and Their Contexts: Scoping Review. J Med Internet Res. 2020; 22(6): e16656. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
5. Renny MH, Thaker RH, Dayan PS: Frequency of and Factors Associated With Prescription Medication Sharing Within Families. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2021; 37(12): 599–605. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
6. Markotic F, Jurisic D, Curkovic M, et al.: Sharing of prescription analgesics amongst patients in family practice: Frequency and associated factors. Eur J Pain. 2018; 22(4): 716–727. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
7. Brown MT, Bussell JK: Medication adherence: WHO cares? Mayo Clin Proc. 2011; 86(4): 304–314. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
8. VanDyke MM, Steffen AM: Medication saving behaviors of older adults: Scale developed to assess family caregiver perspectives. Clin Gerontol. 2017; 40(4): 258–267. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
9. Kusturica MP, Sabo A, Tomic Z, et al.: Storage and disposal of unused medications: knowledge, behavior, and attitudes among Serbian people. Int J Clin Pharm. 2012; 34(4): 604–610. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
10. Silvestre J, Reddy A, De La Cruz M, et al.: Frequency of unsafe storage, use, and disposal practices of opioids among cancer patients presenting to the emergency department. Palliat Support Care. 2017; 15(6): 638–43. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
11. Cassidy N, Duggan E, Williams DJP, et al.: The epidemiology and type of medication errors reported to the National Poisons Information Centre of Ireland. Clin Toxicol (Phila). 2011; 49(6): 485–491. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
12. Aldila F, Walpola R: Medicine self-administration errors in the older adult population: A systematic review. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2021; 17(11): 1877–1886. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
13. Parand A, Garfield S, Vincent C, et al.: Carers' Medication Administration Errors in the Domiciliary Setting: A Systematic Review. PLoS One. 2016; 11(12): e0167204. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
14. Werner NE, Ponnala S, Doutcheva N, et al.: Human factors/ergonomics work system analysis of patient work: state of the science and future directions. Int J Qual Health Care. 2021; 33(Supplement_1): 60–71. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
15. Dul J, Bruder R, Buckle P, et al.: A strategy for human factors/ergonomics: developing the discipline and profession. Ergonomics. 2012; 55(4): 377–395. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
16. International Ergonomics Association (IEA): The Discipline of Ergonomics. IEA; 2000.
17. Carayon P, Schoofs Hundt A, Karsh BT, et al.: Work system design for patient safety: the SEIPS model. Qual Saf Health Care. 2006; 15 Suppl 1(Suppl I): i50–i58. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
18. Doucette WR, Vinel S, Pennathur P: Initial development of the Systems Approach to Home Medication Management (SAHMM) model. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2017; 13(1): 39–47. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
19. Moriarty F, Hardy C, Bennett K, et al.: Trends and interaction of polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate prescribing in primary care over 15 years in Ireland: a repeated cross-sectional study. BMJ Open. 2015; 5(9): e008656. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
20. Kelly D, Koay A, Mineva G, et al.: A scoping review of non-professional medication practices and medication safety outcomes during public health emergencies. Public Health. 2022; 214: 50–60. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
21. Wicks P, Richards T, Denegri S, et al.: Patients' roles and rights in research. BMJ. 2018; 362: k3193. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
22. Pollock A, Campbell P, Struthers C, et al.: Development of the ACTIVE framework to describe stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2019; 24(4): 245–255. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
23. Darzi A: High Quality Care For All: NHS Next Stage Review. London: National Health Service; 2009.
24. Ocloo J, Garfield S, Franklin BD, et al.: Exploring the theory, barriers and enablers for patient and public involvement across health, social care and patient safety: a systematic review of reviews. Health Res Policy Syst. 2021; 19(1): 8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
25. Pollock D, Peters MDJ, Hanan K, et al.: Recommendations for the extraction, analysis, and presentation of results in scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth. 2022; 20(0): 1–14. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
26. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al.: PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018; 169(7): 467–473. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
27. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, et al.: Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015; 4(1): 1. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
28. Negoescu E, Marcilly R, Koay A, et al.: PRISMA-P checklist for ‘The Medication Self-Management Work System of Patients and Informal Carers from a Human Factors & Ergonomics Perspective: A Scoping Review Protocol’. [Dataset]. 2022. http://www.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7463641
29. Noyes J, Booth A, Lewin S, et al.: Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings-paper 6: how to assess relevance of the data. Implement Sc. 2018; 13(Suppl 1): 4. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
30. Hsieh HF, Shannon SE: Three approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005; 15(9): 1277–1288. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1

VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 10 Jan 2023

Author details Author details

¹ School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Panoz Institute, Trinity College Dublin, The University of Dublin, Dublin, D02 PN40, Ireland
² Univ. Lille, CHU Lille, ULR 2694 - METRICS : Évaluation des technologies de santé et des pratiques médicales, Lille, F-59000, France
³ INSERM, CIC-IT 1403, Lille, F-59000, France
⁴ Centre for Innovative Human Systems (CIHS), School of Psychology, Aras an Phiarsaigh, Trinity College Dublin, The University of Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
⁵ Institute for Global Health, University College London, London, WC1N 1EH, UK

Eduard Negoescu
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Romaric Marcilly
Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Samuel Cromie
Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Aaron Koay
Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Tamasine Grimes
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

TG is the Principal Investigator on the Irish Research Council and Health Research Board Ulysses Award 2020. This work was also supported by the French Ministries of Europe and Foreign Affairs and of Higher Education, Research and Innovation. EN is supported by the Provost’s PhD Award 2019 awarded by Trinity College Dublin.
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Article Versions (1)

version 1

Published: 10 Jan 2023, 6:4

https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13674.1

Copyright

© 2023 Negoescu E et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Download

Export To

metrics

VIEWS

813

downloads

37

Citations

0

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Negoescu E, Marcilly R, Cromie S et al. The medication self-management work system of patients and informal carers from a human factors & ergonomics perspective: A scoping review protocol [version 1; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. HRB Open Res 2023, 6:4 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13674.1)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Current Reviewer Status: ?

Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE

ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 10 Jan 2023

Views

27

Reviewer Report 16 Aug 2023

Adam B Sutherland, The University of Manchester, Manchester, England, UK

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.14953.r34444

Thanks so much for allowing me to review this protocol for a scoping review relating to the potential harms associated with the increased reliance on patients and carers to medication-related work in non-clinical settings.

It's certainly an ... Continue reading

Thanks so much for allowing me to review this protocol for a scoping review relating to the potential harms associated with the increased reliance on patients and carers to medication-related work in non-clinical settings.

It's certainly an interesting field for study, and a scoping review using HFE methods is welcomed. I have just a couple of comments and reflections.

While you state that you will involve patients and carers in the project, you have not described HOW they would be identified or recruited. I note that a previous reviewer has asked if they have been involved in the identification of the question therefore my comment stems from this. Who are your potential PPCI representatives, how were they identified and recruited, and how will you support them in this endeavour?
Your search strategy is specifically seeking papers with a HFE focus, and my worry is that you're limiting the review from the start. HFE is still relatively new in healthcare, and newer still in healthcare outside of formal care environments. There is a limited number of theoretically sound studies in this field in hospitals, and even fewer in non-clinical settings. I would not be surprised if you identified a relatively small number of papers, all clustered from 2010 onwards. I note that you state that the literature search has already been conducted. However if you find a paucity of studies in your initial sweep, I would recommend broadening your search criteria to include qualitative observational studies of patient/carer medication work WITHOUT an HFE approach.
I struggle with the conceptual "othering" of patients and carers in the field of medication work. As other reviewers have pointed out, there are elements of the medication process where patients and professionals co-exist, and my concerns come from our "work as imagined" and "work as prescribed" and the potential for undervaluing the importance of the patient's "work as done." Patients and carers have agency and autonomy, and what we classify as "errors" are in many cases rational decisions taken to accommodate the medication into day to day life (see both the May and Maidment citations provided by Reviewer 2). How will your protocol support the identification of and separation of these two concepts?

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Partly
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

No
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Paediatric medicines safety; Human Factors and Ergonomics; Complex Systems and Theory Experience-Based Co-Production;

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Views

28

Reviewer Report 29 Jun 2023

Tilo Mentler, Trier University of Applied Sciences, Trier, Germany

Approved

https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.14953.r34443

This study protocol describes how to conduct a scoping review of lay medication use in settings that are not directly healthcare settings. I thank the authors for their contribution and careful drafting. Likewise, the systemic human factors approach is to ... Continue reading

This study protocol describes how to conduct a scoping review of lay medication use in settings that are not directly healthcare settings. I thank the authors for their contribution and careful drafting. Likewise, the systemic human factors approach is to be appreciated.

The goal and necessity of the study are understandable, but individual justifications are perhaps a bit brief. It has long been common practice for patients to take medications (in part) at home. The arguments could certainly be worked out more clearly here.

The authors state, "Studies that have an element of professional or semi-professional service provision will be excluded." If, as is also stated, all phases of drug administration are considered, there should always be a professional medical part, at least in the case of prescription drugs. This should be clarified.

The ACM Digital Library would also need to be considered, especially regarding technology-based approaches to medication management. There are also quite a few papers from the human factors area.

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

References

1. Vandenberghe B, Vanhoof J, Voorend R, Geerts D, et al.: The 'Self' as Barrier for Self-Management Technologies in Healthcare?. PervasiveHealth '18: Proceedings of the 12th EAI International Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare. 2018. 336-346 Publisher Full Text | Reference Source

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: human computer interaction, safety-critical systems, human factors & ergonomics

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Views

49

Reviewer Report 12 Apr 2023

Nina Fudge, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, England, UK

Approved

https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.14953.r33582

Thank you for the opportunity to review this protocol paper of a scoping review on medication self-management work undertaken by patients and their informal carers. The authors’ proposal to frame the review using human factors and ergonomics approaches and systems ... Continue reading

Thank you for the opportunity to review this protocol paper of a scoping review on medication self-management work undertaken by patients and their informal carers. The authors’ proposal to frame the review using human factors and ergonomics approaches and systems thinking models provides a novel approach for exploring medication management in informal settings.

The first sentence in the abstract and introduction is correct in that healthcare is increasingly being delivered closer to the patient’s homes (e.g. monitoring blood pressure at home, remote care delivery, etc.) but I think this link to medicine management and taking medicines at home needs a better explanation. Haven’t patients always taken their medication in the home? Could the authors please expand on how medicine management has become more burdensome because of the push to deliver care closer to home? Or has medicines management work become more burdensome because of the increase in prescribing behaviour and polypharmacy (as the authors allude to)?

I understand that the focus is on medication management in the home/informal setting and the hazards this can create. But I was surprised not to see more mentioned about the source of medication which requires management - i.e. prescribing by health care professionals and the relationship between work as prescribed by professionals to patients and patients’ capacity to carry out this work (see the work of Carl May and colleagues¹, and Ian Maidment and colleagues²). How will the authors address the treatment burden which is surely not solely the responsibility of patients?

The review will adopt comprehensive patient, public and carer involvement, and from what I understood from the protocol, PPCI will occur from the study selection stage and onwards in the review process. But I wondered if patients and carers had been involved in the identification of the review questions and if so how their involvement shaped the resulting review.

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Yes

References

1. May C, Eton D, Boehmer K, Gallacher K, et al.: Rethinking the patient: using Burden of Treatment Theory to understand the changing dynamics of illness. BMC Health Services Research. 2014; 14 (1). Publisher Full Text
2. Maidment I, Lawson S, Wong G, Booth A, et al.: Towards an understanding of the burdens of medication management affecting older people: the MEMORABLE realist synthesis.BMC Geriatr. 2020; 20 (1): 183 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Qualitative analysis, patient and public involvement, multiple long-term conditions, polypharmacy

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1

VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 10 Jan 2023

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2	3
Version 1 10 Jan 23	read	read	read

Nina Fudge, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
Tilo Mentler, Trier University of Applied Sciences, Trier, Germany
Adam B Sutherland, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Sign up for content alerts

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

27 Views

16 Aug 2023 | for Version 1

Adam B Sutherland, The University of Manchester, Manchester, England, UK

27 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved With Reservations

Thanks so much for allowing me to review this protocol for a scoping review relating to the potential harms associated with the increased reliance on patients and carers to medication-related work in non-clinical settings.

It's certainly an interesting field for study, and a scoping review using HFE methods is welcomed. I have just a couple of comments and reflections.

While you state that you will involve patients and carers in the project, you have not described HOW they would be identified or recruited. I note that a previous reviewer has asked if they have been involved in the identification of the question therefore my comment stems from this. Who are your potential PPCI representatives, how were they identified and recruited, and how will you support them in this endeavour?
Your search strategy is specifically seeking papers with a HFE focus, and my worry is that you're limiting the review from the start. HFE is still relatively new in healthcare, and newer still in healthcare outside of formal care environments. There is a limited number of theoretically sound studies in this field in hospitals, and even fewer in non-clinical settings. I would not be surprised if you identified a relatively small number of papers, all clustered from 2010 onwards. I note that you state that the literature search has already been conducted. However if you find a paucity of studies in your initial sweep, I would recommend broadening your search criteria to include qualitative observational studies of patient/carer medication work WITHOUT an HFE approach.
I struggle with the conceptual "othering" of patients and carers in the field of medication work. As other reviewers have pointed out, there are elements of the medication process where patients and professionals co-exist, and my concerns come from our "work as imagined" and "work as prescribed" and the potential for undervaluing the importance of the patient's "work as done." Patients and carers have agency and autonomy, and what we classify as "errors" are in many cases rational decisions taken to accommodate the medication into day to day life (see both the May and Maidment citations provided by Reviewer 2). How will your protocol support the identification of and separation of these two concepts?

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Partly
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

No
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Paediatric medicines safety; Human Factors and Ergonomics; Complex Systems and Theory Experience-Based Co-Production;

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

28 Views

29 Jun 2023 | for Version 1

Tilo Mentler, Trier University of Applied Sciences, Trier, Germany

28 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

This study protocol describes how to conduct a scoping review of lay medication use in settings that are not directly healthcare settings. I thank the authors for their contribution and careful drafting. Likewise, the systemic human factors approach is to be appreciated.

The goal and necessity of the study are understandable, but individual justifications are perhaps a bit brief. It has long been common practice for patients to take medications (in part) at home. The arguments could certainly be worked out more clearly here.

The authors state, "Studies that have an element of professional or semi-professional service provision will be excluded." If, as is also stated, all phases of drug administration are considered, there should always be a professional medical part, at least in the case of prescription drugs. This should be clarified.

The ACM Digital Library would also need to be considered, especially regarding technology-based approaches to medication management. There are also quite a few papers from the human factors area.

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

References

1. Vandenberghe B, Vanhoof J, Voorend R, Geerts D, et al.: The 'Self' as Barrier for Self-Management Technologies in Healthcare?. PervasiveHealth '18: Proceedings of the 12th EAI International Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare. 2018. 336-346 Publisher Full Text | Reference Source

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

human computer interaction, safety-critical systems, human factors & ergonomics

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

49 Views

12 Apr 2023 | for Version 1

Nina Fudge, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, England, UK

49 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

Thank you for the opportunity to review this protocol paper of a scoping review on medication self-management work undertaken by patients and their informal carers. The authors’ proposal to frame the review using human factors and ergonomics approaches and systems thinking models provides a novel approach for exploring medication management in informal settings.

The first sentence in the abstract and introduction is correct in that healthcare is increasingly being delivered closer to the patient’s homes (e.g. monitoring blood pressure at home, remote care delivery, etc.) but I think this link to medicine management and taking medicines at home needs a better explanation. Haven’t patients always taken their medication in the home? Could the authors please expand on how medicine management has become more burdensome because of the push to deliver care closer to home? Or has medicines management work become more burdensome because of the increase in prescribing behaviour and polypharmacy (as the authors allude to)?

I understand that the focus is on medication management in the home/informal setting and the hazards this can create. But I was surprised not to see more mentioned about the source of medication which requires management - i.e. prescribing by health care professionals and the relationship between work as prescribed by professionals to patients and patients’ capacity to carry out this work (see the work of Carl May and colleagues¹, and Ian Maidment and colleagues²). How will the authors address the treatment burden which is surely not solely the responsibility of patients?

The review will adopt comprehensive patient, public and carer involvement, and from what I understood from the protocol, PPCI will occur from the study selection stage and onwards in the review process. But I wondered if patients and carers had been involved in the identification of the review questions and if so how their involvement shaped the resulting review.

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Yes

References

1. May C, Eton D, Boehmer K, Gallacher K, et al.: Rethinking the patient: using Burden of Treatment Theory to understand the changing dynamics of illness. BMC Health Services Research. 2014; 14 (1). Publisher Full Text
2. Maidment I, Lawson S, Wong G, Booth A, et al.: Towards an understanding of the burdens of medication management affecting older people: the MEMORABLE realist synthesis.BMC Geriatr. 2020; 20 (1): 183 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Qualitative analysis, patient and public involvement, multiple long-term conditions, polypharmacy

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

[1] 1. Zayas-Cabán T, Flatley Brennan P: Human factors in home care. Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics in Health Care and Patient Safety. Edited by Carayon P. Mahwah, New Jersey: Erlbaum, 2007.

[2] 2. Aliotta S, Andre J: Case management and home health care: an integrated model. Home Health Care Manag Pract. 1997; 9(2): 1–12. Publisher Full Text

[3] 3. Cheraghi-Sohi S, Jeffries M, Stevenson F, et al.: The influence of personal communities on the self-management of medication taking: A wider exploration of medicine work. Chronic Illn. 2015; 11(2): 77–92. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[4] 4. Yin K, Jung J, Coiera E, et al.: Patient Work and Their Contexts: Scoping Review. J Med Internet Res. 2020; 22(6): e16656. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[5] 5. Renny MH, Thaker RH, Dayan PS: Frequency of and Factors Associated With Prescription Medication Sharing Within Families. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2021; 37(12): 599–605. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[6] 6. Markotic F, Jurisic D, Curkovic M, et al.: Sharing of prescription analgesics amongst patients in family practice: Frequency and associated factors. Eur J Pain. 2018; 22(4): 716–727. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[7] 7. Brown MT, Bussell JK: Medication adherence: WHO cares? Mayo Clin Proc. 2011; 86(4): 304–314. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[8] 8. VanDyke MM, Steffen AM: Medication saving behaviors of older adults: Scale developed to assess family caregiver perspectives. Clin Gerontol. 2017; 40(4): 258–267. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[9] 9. Kusturica MP, Sabo A, Tomic Z, et al.: Storage and disposal of unused medications: knowledge, behavior, and attitudes among Serbian people. Int J Clin Pharm. 2012; 34(4): 604–610. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[10] 10. Silvestre J, Reddy A, De La Cruz M, et al.: Frequency of unsafe storage, use, and disposal practices of opioids among cancer patients presenting to the emergency department. Palliat Support Care. 2017; 15(6): 638–43. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[11] 11. Cassidy N, Duggan E, Williams DJP, et al.: The epidemiology and type of medication errors reported to the National Poisons Information Centre of Ireland. Clin Toxicol (Phila). 2011; 49(6): 485–491. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[12] 12. Aldila F, Walpola R: Medicine self-administration errors in the older adult population: A systematic review. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2021; 17(11): 1877–1886. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[13] 13. Parand A, Garfield S, Vincent C, et al.: Carers' Medication Administration Errors in the Domiciliary Setting: A Systematic Review. PLoS One. 2016; 11(12): e0167204. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[14] 14. Werner NE, Ponnala S, Doutcheva N, et al.: Human factors/ergonomics work system analysis of patient work: state of the science and future directions. Int J Qual Health Care. 2021; 33(Supplement_1): 60–71. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[15] 15. Dul J, Bruder R, Buckle P, et al.: A strategy for human factors/ergonomics: developing the discipline and profession. Ergonomics. 2012; 55(4): 377–395. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[16] 16. International Ergonomics Association (IEA): The Discipline of Ergonomics. IEA; 2000.

[17] 17. Carayon P, Schoofs Hundt A, Karsh BT, et al.: Work system design for patient safety: the SEIPS model. Qual Saf Health Care. 2006; 15 Suppl 1(Suppl I): i50–i58. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[18] 18. Doucette WR, Vinel S, Pennathur P: Initial development of the Systems Approach to Home Medication Management (SAHMM) model. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2017; 13(1): 39–47. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[19] 19. Moriarty F, Hardy C, Bennett K, et al.: Trends and interaction of polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate prescribing in primary care over 15 years in Ireland: a repeated cross-sectional study. BMJ Open. 2015; 5(9): e008656. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[20] 20. Kelly D, Koay A, Mineva G, et al.: A scoping review of non-professional medication practices and medication safety outcomes during public health emergencies. Public Health. 2022; 214: 50–60. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[21] 21. Wicks P, Richards T, Denegri S, et al.: Patients' roles and rights in research. BMJ. 2018; 362: k3193. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[22] 22. Pollock A, Campbell P, Struthers C, et al.: Development of the ACTIVE framework to describe stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2019; 24(4): 245–255. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[23] 23. Darzi A: High Quality Care For All: NHS Next Stage Review. London: National Health Service; 2009.

[24] 24. Ocloo J, Garfield S, Franklin BD, et al.: Exploring the theory, barriers and enablers for patient and public involvement across health, social care and patient safety: a systematic review of reviews. Health Res Policy Syst. 2021; 19(1): 8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[25] 25. Pollock D, Peters MDJ, Hanan K, et al.: Recommendations for the extraction, analysis, and presentation of results in scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth. 2022; 20(0): 1–14. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[26] 26. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al.: PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018; 169(7): 467–473. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[27] 27. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, et al.: Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015; 4(1): 1. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[28] 28. Negoescu E, Marcilly R, Koay A, et al.: PRISMA-P checklist for ‘The Medication Self-Management Work System of Patients and Informal Carers from a Human Factors & Ergonomics Perspective: A Scoping Review Protocol’. [Dataset]. 2022. http://www.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7463641

[29] 29. Noyes J, Booth A, Lewin S, et al.: Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings-paper 6: how to assess relevance of the data. Implement Sc. 2018; 13(Suppl 1): 4. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[30] 30. Hsieh HF, Shannon SE: Three approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005; 15(9): 1277–1288. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

The medication self-management work system of patients and informal carers from a human factors & ergonomics perspective: A scoping review protocol

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

The present need for research

Objectives

Methods

Patient, public and carer involvement

Protocol development

Eligibility criteria

Information sources

Search strategy

Table 1. Combined search strategy adapted for the MEDLINE and Embase databases through the Embase interface.

Selection of studies

Data charting process

Data analysis

Data presentation

Risk of bias and quality assessment

Research ethics committee approval

Study status

Discussion

Data availability

Underlying data

Reporting guidelines

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Are you a HRB-funded researcher?

Thank you!

The medication self-management work system of patients and informal carers from a human factors & ergonomics perspective: A scoping review protocol

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

The present need for research

Objectives

Methods

Patient, public and carer involvement

Protocol development

Eligibility criteria

Information sources

Search strategy

Table 1. Combined search strategy adapted for the MEDLINE and Embase databases through the Embase interface.

Selection of studies

Data charting process

Data analysis

Data presentation

Risk of bias and quality assessment

Research ethics committee approval

Study status

Discussion

Data availability

Underlying data

Reporting guidelines

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated

Are you a HRB-funded researcher?

Thank you!