Purpose: The aim of this systematic review was to identify methods used to assess medication preferences in older adults and evaluate their advantages and disadvantages with respect to their applicability to the context of multimorbidity and polypharmacy. Material and Methods: Three electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, PsycINFO) were searched. Eligible studies elicited individual treatment or outcome preferences in a context that involved long-term pharmacological treatment options. We included studies with a study population aged ≥ 65 years and/or with a mean or median age of ≥ 75 years. Qualitative studies, studies assessing preferences for only two different treatments, and studies targeting preferences for life-sustaining treatments were excluded. The identified preference measurement methods were evaluated based on four criteria (time budget, cognitive demand, variety of pharmacological aspects, and link with treatment strategies) judged to be relevant for the elicitation of patient preferences in polypharmacy. Results: Sixty articles met the eligibility criteria and were included in the narrative synthesis. Fifty-five different instruments to assess patient preferences, based on 24 different elicitation methods, were identified. The most commonly applied preference measurement techniques were "medication willingness" (description of a specific medication with inquiry of the participant's willingness to take it), discrete choice experiments, Likert scale-based questionnaires, and rank prioritization. The majority of the instruments were created for disease-specific or context-specific settings. Only three instruments (Outcome Prioritization Tool, a complex intervention, "MediMol" questionnaire) dealt with the broader issue of geriatric multimorbidity. Only seven of the identified tools showed somewhat favorable characteristics for a potential use of the respective method in the context of polypharmacy. Conclusion: Up to now, few instruments have been specifically designed for the assessment of medication preferences in older patients with multimorbidity. To facilitate valid preference elicitation in the context of geriatric polypharmacy, future research should focus on suitable characteristics of existing techniques to develop new measurement approaches for this increasingly relevant population.

BackgroundThe strength, assistance walking, rise from a chair, climb stairs, and falls (SARC-F) questionnaire is a well-established instrument for screening of sarcopenia and sarcopenia-related functional impairments. As it is based on self-reporting, its use precludes patients who are unable to answer the questionnaire as a consequence of severe acute diseases or cognitive impairment. Therefore, we aimed to validate a proxy-reported version of the SARC-F for both ad-hoc as well as retrospective screening for severe sarcopenia-related functional impairments. Methods Patients aged ≥60 years completed the SARC-F and performed the short physical performance battery (SPPB) at baseline (T1). Proxies in Cohort A gave a simultaneous assessment of the patients' functional status with the proxy-reported SARC-F at T1 and again, retrospectively, after 3 months (T2). Proxies in Cohort B only completed the SARC-F retrospectively at T2. The questionnaires' performances were assessed through sensitivity/specificity analyses and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. For non-inferiority analyses, results of both the patient-reported and proxy-reported SARC-F were correlated with the SPPB total score as well as the results of the chair-rise test subcategory; the respective correlation coefficients were tested against each other. Results One hundred and four patients and 135 proxies participated. Using a SPPB score < 9 points as the reference standard, the proxy-reported SARC-F identified patients at high risk for sarcopenia-related functional impairment with a sensitivity of 0.81 (ad-hoc), 0.88 (retrospective Cohort A), and 0.87 (retrospective Cohort B) as well as a specificity of 0.89 (ad-hoc), 0.78 (retrospective Cohort A), and 0.64 (retrospective Cohort B). Areas under the ROC curves were ≥ 0.9 for the ad-hoc proxy-reported SARC-F and the retrospective proxy-reported SARC-F in both cohorts. The proxy-reported SARC-F showed a non-inferior correlation with the SPPB compared with the patient-reported SARC-F for ad-hoc (P = <0.001) as well as retrospective screening for severe sarcopenia-related functional impairment in both Cohorts A (P = 0.007) and B (P = 0.026). Conclusions Proxy-reported SARC-F is a valid instrument for both ad-hoc as well as retrospective screening for sarcopenia-related functional impairment and could become the standard tool for evaluating this risk in older adults with severe acute disease, for example, in patients with quickly evolving haematological conditions.

Purpose Medical decision-making in older adults with multiple chronic conditions and polypharmacy should include the individual patient’s treatment preferences. We developed and pilot-tested an electronic instrument (PolyPref) to elicit patient preferences in geriatric polypharmacy. Patients and Methods PolyPref follows a two-stage direct approach to preference assessment. Stage 1 generates an individual preselection of relevant health outcomes and medication regimen characteristics, followed by stage 2, in which their importance is assessed using the Q-sort methodology. The feasibility of the instrument was tested in adults aged ≥70 years with ≥2 chronic conditions and regular intake of ≥5 medicines. After the assessment with PolyPref, the patients rated the tool with regard to its comprehensibility and usability and assessed the accuracy of the personal result. Evaluators rated the patients’ understanding of the task. Results Eighteen short-term health outcomes, 3 long-term health outcomes, and 8 medication regimen characteristics were included in the instrument. The final population for the pilot study comprised 15 inpatients at a clinic for geriatric rehabilitation with a mean age of 80.6 (± 6.0) years, a median score of 28 (range 25–30) points on the Mini-Mental State Examination, and a mean of 11.6 (± 3.6) regularly taken medicines. Feedback by the patients and the evaluators revealed ratings in favor of understanding and comprehensibility of 86.7% to 100%. The majority of the patients stated that their final result summarized the most important aspects of their pharmacotherapy (93.3%) and that its ranking order reflected their personal opinion (100%). Preference assessment took an average of 35 (± 8.5) min, with the instrument being handled by the evaluator in 14 of the 15 participants. Conclusion Preference assessment with PolyPref was feasible in older adults with multiple chronic conditions and polypharmacy, offering a new strategy for the standardized evaluation of patient priorities in geriatric pharmacotherapy.