Deprescribing: Future Directions for Research

For which topic were research priorities identified?

deprescribing

In which location was the research priority setting conducted?

international

Why was it conducted at all?

The Bruyère Evidence-Based Deprescribing Guidelines Symposium took place in Ottawa, Canada from March 27-29, 2018. This symposium brought together researchers, educators, clinicians, patient advocates, guideline developers, policy makers, and other stakeholders. A major goal was to identify future research directions that build on previous deprescribing research. The symposium included a workshop where participants met to discuss gaps in the deprescribing evidence base and directions for future deprescribing research.

What was the objective?

to identify areas where evidence is most urgently needed and discuss how to best address these gaps and limitations in evidence

What was the outcome?

a list of 6 research areas

How long did the research prioritization take?

1 day

Which methods were used to identify research priorities?

workshop

How were the priorities for research identified exactly?

Step 1: workshop with World Café method: participants were first presented with overview of participatory and expert-led methodologies and approaches that could be used to evaluate deprescribing initiatives as well as an overview of deprescribing research to date and gaps in deprescribing evidence base, then participants were asked to discuss three questions: "What are deprescribing research priorities (to inform guideline development)? What outcome measures are important for developing deprescribing guidelines? How do we evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of deprescribing guidelines?"

Which stakeholders took part?

Researchers, clinicians, policymakers, stakeholders. 30 participants.

How were stakeholders recruited?

The participants of Bruyère Evidence-Based Deprescribing Guidelines Symposium were recruited.

Were stakeholders actively involved or did they just participate?

Stakeholders were mere participants of the research prioritization process; they were not actively involved in the process.