Quality Use of Medicines in People Living with Dementia (Australia) PSP Question Verification Form


Published: 07 December 2022

Version: 1

Print this document

The purpose of this Question Verification Form is to enable Priority Setting Partnerships (PSPs) to describe clearly how they checked that their questions were unanswered, before starting the interim prioritisation stage of the process.

The JLA requires PSPs to be transparent and accountable in defining their own scope and evidence checking process. This will enable researchers and other stakeholders to understand how individual PSPs decided that their questions were unanswered, and any limitations of their evidence checking. 

Name of the PSP

Quality Use of Medicines in People Living with Dementia Priority Setting Partnership

Please describe the scope of the PSP

The scope of the Quality Use of Medicines in People Living with Dementia PSP includes questions about:

  • The benefits and harms of medications (including combinations of medications) in people living with dementia.
  • Appropriate medication use across the different stages of dementia and in different settings.
  • How to collaboratively achieve the goal of quality use of medicines in people living with dementia.
  • All medications that people living with dementia could take (for any condition), including prescription, over-the-counter and complementary/herbal medications.

The PSP will exclude from its scope questions about:

  • The development or discovery of new medicines to treat or prevent dementia.
  • Non-drug care of people living with dementia (unless it is related to quality use of medicines, for example, how we can reduce use of harmful or unnecessary medicines)

(These types of questions are also important, but they are not the focus of this study)

Please provide a brief overview of your approach to checking whether the questions were unanswered

The following steps were followed by the evidence checkers:

  1. Familiarisation with list of research questions
  2. Begin evidence checking: searching
  3. Assess whether the research question is answered or unanswered.
  4. Provide reference(s) and short summary
  5. Document any notes or if you found studies/review/guideline in progress
  6. Send completed spreadsheet back to PSP lead

The full details of the process are outlined in “Evidence checking process 8Mar”

Please list the type(s) of evidence you used to verify your questions as unanswered

Guidelines and systematic reviews (or reviews of systematic reviews)

Please list the sources that you searched in order to identify that evidence

For each question, the following databases/registries were searched:

  • Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (systematic reviews only)
  • NICE Guidelines
  • NHMRC Guidelines registry

If the evidence checker felt that the question is one that wouldn’t be answered in a guideline or Cochrane review, the following additional databases could be searched: (this is optional.)

  • Relevant Professional associations guidance (where relevant) (e.g. search on their website, or can do a Google search for the organisation+guideline etc)
  • PubMed/Medline
  • https://www.epistemonikos.org/ - Combines the best of Evidence-Based Health Care, information technologies and a network of experts to provide a unique tool for people making decisions concerning clinical or health-policy questions.

What search terms did you use?

Search terms can be created/amended according to the question (i.e. it is up to the evidence checker to decide on search terms for each question).

To help with the search, the following search strategy was provided (in Pubmed format below). (But – this is quite an extensive search and can be reduced/edited as appropriate.)

((((dementia[Title/Abstract]) OR (cognitive impairment[Title/Abstract])) OR ("dementia"[MeSH Major Topic])) OR ("dementia"[MeSH Terms])) OR ("dementia/drug therapy"[MeSH Terms])
Systematic reviews and guidelines:
((((((((((((((guid*[Title/Abstract]) OR (clinical protocol[Title/Abstract])) OR (polic*[Title/Abstract])) OR ("guideline adherence"[MeSH Major Topic])) OR ("guidelines as topic"[MeSH Major Topic])) OR ("practice guidelines as topic"[MeSH Major Topic])) OR ("clinical protocols"[MeSH Major Topic])) OR (guideline[MeSH Terms])) OR (clinical practice guideline[MeSH Terms])) OR (adherence, guideline[MeSH Terms])) OR (guideline adherence[MeSH Terms])) OR (review, systematic[MeSH Terms])) OR ("systematic reviews as topic"[MeSH Major Topic])) OR ("review literature as topic"[MeSH Major Topic])) OR ("systematic review"[Title/Abstract])
Date limit:
(("2018/01/01"[Date - Publication] : "3000"[Date - Publication]))
Combine the above with AND and keywords for your question. Suggest sticking to MeSH and use of keywords in Title/Abstract.

Please describe the parameters of the search (eg time limits, excluded sources, country/language) and the rationale for any limitations

The JLA recommends that an up-to-date systematic review is less than three years old – therefore limit searches to 2018 – onwards. Also limited to English language documents.

Names of individuals who undertook the evidence checking

  • Emily Reeve BPharm(Hons) PhD
  • Kham Tran PhD (supported by) Tuan Anh Nguyen BPharm, MPharm, PhD
  • Lisa Kalisch Ellett BPharm, PhD
  • Julia Gilmartin-Thomas BPharm (Hons), Grad Cert Pharm Prac, AFHEA(UK), MBiostats, PhD
  • Edwin Tan BPharm (Hons), Grad Cert Pharm Prac, PhD
  • Lynn Chenoweth RN, BA, MA (Hons), MA Ed, PhD, GC Ter.Ed
  • Mouna Sawan BPharm, PhD, AACP
  • Sarah Hilmer BScMed(Hons 1) MBBS(Hons) FRACP PhD
  • Janet Sluggett, BPharm(Hons), GDipClinEpid, PhD, Cert IV Training and Assessment, FSHP

On what date was the question verification process completed?

28th May 2021

Any other relevant information

The full details of the process are outlined in “Evidence checking process 8Mar”

Version 1. Date 16th June 2021