Prescription drug monitoring programs evaluation: A systematic review of reviews.


Journal

Drug and alcohol dependence
ISSN: 1879-0046
Titre abrégé: Drug Alcohol Depend
Pays: Ireland
ID NLM: 7513587

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
01 06 2023
Historique:
received: 11 02 2023
revised: 10 04 2023
accepted: 14 04 2023
medline: 22 5 2023
pubmed: 2 5 2023
entrez: 1 5 2023
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs) are used to mitigate harms from high-risk medicines including misuse, prescription shopping, overdoses, and death. Previous systematic reviews report inconsistent findings. We undertook a systematic review of reviews to 1) describe and identify the methods and outcome measures used to evaluate PDMPs, 2) summarise existing evidence on outcomes and factors that influence PDMP success or benefit realisation. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and PROSPERO were used to identify systematic reviews on PDMPs. Twelve papers met the inclusion criteria. Data extracted included review aim, study designs, settings, outcome measures, and key findings. Quality was assessed using AMSTAR 2 quality assessment tool. Review papers were categorised as outcome or process evaluation reviews. Process evaluation reviews described implementation processes, barriers and facilitators to PDMP use and/or implementation. Most (57%) papers described barriers which frequently included usability and data integration. Outcome evaluation papers reported impact of PDMPs on outcomes, which were opioid-focused, and findings were highly variable. Most reviews (67%) were rated as low quality, limiting the conclusions that can be drawn. Inconsistent methods and outcome measures were used to evaluate PDMPs. No economic evaluations of PDMPs were found. Standardising assessment and reporting of results may improve the quality and confidence in an evidence-base to inform future roll-out and evaluation of PDMPs. Targeting barriers such as system-related challenges and negative end-user perceptions could improve sustained uptake of PDMPs, and potentially facilitate benefits realisation, including mitigating harms of high-risk prescription medicines.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs) are used to mitigate harms from high-risk medicines including misuse, prescription shopping, overdoses, and death. Previous systematic reviews report inconsistent findings. We undertook a systematic review of reviews to 1) describe and identify the methods and outcome measures used to evaluate PDMPs, 2) summarise existing evidence on outcomes and factors that influence PDMP success or benefit realisation.
METHODS
MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and PROSPERO were used to identify systematic reviews on PDMPs. Twelve papers met the inclusion criteria. Data extracted included review aim, study designs, settings, outcome measures, and key findings. Quality was assessed using AMSTAR 2 quality assessment tool.
RESULTS
Review papers were categorised as outcome or process evaluation reviews. Process evaluation reviews described implementation processes, barriers and facilitators to PDMP use and/or implementation. Most (57%) papers described barriers which frequently included usability and data integration. Outcome evaluation papers reported impact of PDMPs on outcomes, which were opioid-focused, and findings were highly variable. Most reviews (67%) were rated as low quality, limiting the conclusions that can be drawn.
CONCLUSIONS
Inconsistent methods and outcome measures were used to evaluate PDMPs. No economic evaluations of PDMPs were found. Standardising assessment and reporting of results may improve the quality and confidence in an evidence-base to inform future roll-out and evaluation of PDMPs. Targeting barriers such as system-related challenges and negative end-user perceptions could improve sustained uptake of PDMPs, and potentially facilitate benefits realisation, including mitigating harms of high-risk prescription medicines.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37126936
pii: S0376-8716(23)00125-4
doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2023.109887
pii:
doi:

Substances chimiques

Analgesics, Opioid 0

Types de publication

Journal Article Review Systematic Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

109887

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declaration of Competing Interest No conflict of interest to declare.

Auteurs

Emma Tay (E)

Faculty of Medicine and Health, School of Medical Sciences, Biomedical Informatics and Digital Health, The University of Sydney, Australia; Drug Health Service, Western Sydney Local Health District, Australia. Electronic address: Emma.Tay@health.nsw.gov.au.

Meredith Makeham (M)

Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Australia; Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, Australia.

Tracey-Lea Laba (TL)

Clinical and Health Sciences, University of South Australia, Australia; Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation, The University of Technology Sydney, Australia.

Melissa Baysari (M)

Faculty of Medicine and Health, School of Medical Sciences, Biomedical Informatics and Digital Health, The University of Sydney, Australia.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH