Global Mapping of Potentially Inappropriate Prescribing for Older Adults in Community Settings: An Umbrella Review
- Author:
Nafiseh GHASSAB-ABDOLLAHI
1
;
Haidar NADRIAN
;
Fatemeh SAADATI
;
Fariba ASHAZADEH
;
Elnaz SHASEB
;
Mina HASHEMIPARAST
;
Hamid ALLAHVERDIPOUR
Author Information
- Publication Type:Review Article
- From:Korean Journal of Family Medicine 2023;44(4):189-204
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
- Abstract: Potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) is a major public health concern with several undesirable health consequences for older adults. In this overview, we aimed to map and gather information from existing literature to provide a better insight into the prevalence of PIP among community dwellers. Electronic databases were searched from their inception to April 2022. The quality of the included systematic reviews (SRs) was assessed using the assessment of multiple systematic reviews checklist. The degree of overlap within the SRs was also evaluated (2% overlap). All SRs on the prevalence of PIP in older individuals in community settings were included, and a narrative approach was used to synthesize data. Nineteen SRs comprising 548 primary studies met the inclusion criteria, and the average quality of the included SRs was moderate. More than half (50.5%) of the primary studies were conducted in Europe, followed by the United States (22.8%), and Asia (18.9%). Thirty different criteria were used in the primary studies to estimate the prevalence of PIP. The most widely used criteria were those presented in Beers (41.8%) and STOPP (Screening Tool of Older Persons’ Prescriptions)/START (Screening Tool to Alert to Right Treatment) (21.8%) criteria. Benzodiazepines, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and antidepressants were the most frequently reported PIPs. A considerable variation in the prevalence of PIP ranging from 0% to 98% was reported by SRs. However, there is a high degree of uncertainty regarding the extent of PIP in community settings. To identify knowledge-to-action gaps, SR authors should consider the differences in prevalence of PIP according to settings, applied tools, data sources, geographical areas, and specific pathologies. There is also a need for primary and SR studies from low- and middle-income countries regarding the prevalence of PIP.
