Table 9 The TIDieR (Template for Intervention Description and Replication) checklist
Item | Where located in MyComrade Trial protocol [23] | |
|---|---|---|
BRIEF NAME | ||
1 | MultimorbiditY COllaborative Medication Review And DEcision Making (MyComrade) | Page 1 |
WHY | ||
2 | We used the results of a systematic review and qualitative interview together with the Capability- Opportunity-Motivation-Behaviour (COM-B) model of behaviour, the Behaviour Change Wheel approach to intervention development and the Behaviour Change Technique (BCT) taxonomy to develop this intervention specifically to facilitate the conduct of active medication review. Based on the findings of a feasibility study, one additional BCT was added to address the need for additional supports to complete medication reviews | Page 5 and http://www.implementationscience.com/content/10/1/132; https://pilotfeasibilitystudies.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40814-017-0129-8 |
WHAT | ||
3 | Pairs of General Practitioners (GPs) in the Republic of Ireland (ROI), and a GP and Practice-Based Pharmacist (PBP) in Northern Ireland (NI). GPs/GP and PBPs received a brief information session and were provided with instructions on how to implement the intervention. The instructions detailed the six behaviour change techniques included in the intervention. They were also provided with a booklet containing copies of a medication review checklist. This checklist was a modified version of the NO TEARS tool for medication review | GP participant information leaflet https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-3S2nK5HZjADEW04n01NCny-oJxdquvL/view?usp=sharing Instructions for participating GPs/PBPs https://drive.google.com/file/d/12sjxYC9sqsq4NAdvBNZz0GUSnenGKPCT/view?usp=sharing Medication review checklist https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_Y4QczlLgLykiDSCHc2jJpfHVvI3fMYe/view?usp=sharing |
4 | Each pair of GPs or GP and PBP was asked to conduct 20 medication reviews using the MyComrade approach. Patients who were prescribed 10 or more medications were recruited from each practice | Page 9–13 |
WHO PROVIDED | ||
5 | Only practicing GPs/PBP implemented the intervention | Page 13 |
HOW | ||
6 | GPs or GP and PBP implemented the intervention in pairs | Page 13 |
WHERE | ||
7 | The intervention was implemented in the GP practice. The participating GPs, or GP and PBP were asked to come up with an action plan in which they would specify when and where they would conduct the reviews | Page 13 |
WHEN & HOW MUCH | ||
8 | Each pair of GPs, or GP and PBP was asked to conduct 20 medication reviews using the MyComrade approach. Patients were recruited from each practice who were prescribed 10 or more medications.They were asked to complete the reviews within a four month interval | Page 9–13 |
TAILORING | ||
9 | Participating GPs, or GP and PBP were advised that they could adapt the action plan (when, where, how many patients to review in one sitting etc.) to suit their own practice. This adaption was captured in qualitative interviews | Page 11, 18 and participant information sheets as above |
MODIFICATIONS | ||
10. ǂ | As described above, the original intervention was modified based on findings from a feasibility study. Further modifications were made to account for contextual differences between the two jurisdictions involved in the trial – principally that the reviews were conducted by GP pairs in ROI and GP-PBP pairs in NI. Changes were also made due to the COVID pandemic such as inviting only one tranche of 50 patients per practice | Page 14 and https://pilotfeasibilitystudies.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40814-017-0129-8 |
HOW WELL | ||
11 | Intervention adherence will be assessed in qualitative interviews | Page 18 |
12. ǂ | Observation or recording of implementation of the intervention was not performed | |