Effectiveness of interactive dashboards to optimise prescribing in primary care: A systematic review ==================================================================================================== * Caroline McCarthy * Patrick Moynagh * Áine Mannion * Ashely Wei * Barbara Clyne * Frank Moriarty ## Abstract **Background** Rising levels of both high-risk and low-value prescribing have the potential for adverse effects on patients, healthcare systems and society. It is thus necessary to develop effective and cost-effective interventions to support safe, effective and cost-effective prescribing. Advancements in technology, including machine learning coupled with the vast amounts of routine prescribing data available in primary care have supported the development of novel approaches to provide prescribers with ongoing and comparative prescribing data feedback. This systematic review aimed to explore the characteristics of interactive dashboard interventions in primary care that provide visual and longitudinal feedback on prescription data and to explore the effect of these interventions on prescribing-related outcome measures. **Methods and Findings** This systematic review was registered prospectively and reported in line with PRISMA guidelines. Multiple databases and grey literature were searched in November 2023 to identify interventional studies, including quasi-experimental designs that explored the effect of interactive dashboards on prescribing-related outcomes in primary care. Identified records were assessed for inclusion and data extraction and risk of bias assessment were completed by two independent researchers. Interventions characteristics and effects were described narratively. A meta-analysis using a random-effects model was performed where at least two studies were comparable in terms of participants, study design and outcomes. Twelve studies, reported across eleven different papers were included, eight randomised controlled trials, one controlled before and after study and three interrupted time series analyses. Nine papers were assessed to be of low risk of bias. Six studies reported a significant effect on prescribing-related outcomes, with an effect seen more often for studies focusing on potentially inappropriate or high-risk prescribing (four out of six studies). Two of the six studies that focused on antibiotic prescribing demonstrated a significant effect. A meta-analysis of three RCTs involving 406 general practices and 337,963 patients demonstrated the overall odds of having at least one potentially inappropriate prescription was 0.87 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.93 I2 =0.0%) in the intervention compared to control group. **Conclusion** Interactive dashboards have the potential to support safe and effective prescribing in primary care. To support their implementation, it is essential to establish the necessary data infrastructure within primary cares systems. This encompasses electronic health records (EHR) systems, data integration tools, analytics platforms, and compliance with data privacy regulations, all working together to facilitate the efficient use of data for improving prescribing and ultimately patient care. Key Words * Interactive dashboards * potentially inappropriate prescribing * audit and feedback * preventable drug related morbidity * polypharmacy * comparative benchmarking * electronic health records * routine prescription data ## Introduction Prescribing is the most common healthcare intervention and advances in therapeutics have improved the lives and life expectancy of many people living with chronic illness (1). However, alongside these improvements there has been an increase in potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) which has potential negative consequences for individuals, society and healthcare systems (2). Prescribing for older patients with multiple chronic illnesses is particularly challenging as prescribers must contend with both potential drug-drug and drug-disease interactions (3). The reasons for potentially inappropriate prescribing are complex and multifaceted and include systems failures, particularly at the interface between primary and secondary care, individual patient factors such as increasing age and multimorbidity, clinician factors such as knowledge and attitudes and broader societal attitudes about the roles and benefits of medicines (4). To both measure and address this, a variety of explicit criteria have been developed for use in both research and clinical practice (5). These measures tend to focus on highly prevalent PIP or those with the potential for significant harm. More recently there has been a shift towards identifying and addressing low-value prescribing, which on a population level can result in harm both directly (e.g. experiencing adverse effects from medicines that are not providing benefit) and indirectly (e.g. contributing to non-adherence and through the opportunity cost of other cost-effective interventions not resourced due to spending on low-value medicines) (6). Explicit measures of medication appropriateness have been demonstrated to be effective at improving prescribing and have the advantage of being relatively reproducible, reliable and easy to apply to large numbers of people (7). With recent advancements in electronic healthcare records (EHR) and prescribing, it is now possible to apply explicit criteria to routine prescribing or dispensing datasets. OpenPrescribing.net is a prominent example, where the vast amount of anonymous prescription data published by NHS England each month is analysed and presented on a web platform to allow for comparative benchmarking between practices (8). However, when using publicly available anonymous data, only a subset of explicit criteria can be applied as patient-level data such as age and co-morbidities are not included. In addition, it is challenging for clinicians to identify and act on individual instances of sub-optimal prescribing. One approach to combine both audit and feedback and clinical decision support (both of which have been identified as effective methods to improve prescribing (9, 10)), while maintaining anonymity, has been to embed code within practice systems and export aggregate-level data (11). This aggregated data can then be fed back to individual practices in the form of interactive dashboards and allow for comparative benchmarking. This approach ensures that individual patient identities are protected while allowing practices to compare their performance, identify areas for improvement and act on individual instances of high-risk prescribing. Identifying appropriate outcome measures is a challenge when assessing the effectiveness of interventions such as interactive dashboards designed to improve prescribing quality in primary care settings. Important clinical endpoints such as unplanned hospital admissions or mortality require a sufficient sample size and an adequate follow-up period to identify any potential effect, which may not be feasible. Thus, composite measures of explicit prescribing criteria are often used as primary endpoints for these studies (12). There is strong observational evidence that such prescribing is associated with adverse outcomes for patients such as increased mortality, falls and unplanned hospital admissions (13). More general prescribing measures include rates of utilisation and these serve as a valuable outcome for evaluating the impact of health policy implementation programmes aimed at modifying prescribing behaviours, such as reducing high opioid prescription levels (14) or imposing restrictions on drugs with unfavourable cost-effectiveness profiles (15). Given the recent advancements in the data infrastructure of primary care and the need to address both high-risk and low value prescribing, this systematic review aimed to explore characteristics and effectiveness of interactive dashboard interventions on prescribing outcomes in primary care with the additional goal of informing future intervention development and e-prescribing infrastructure. ## Methods The methods have been described previously in our published protocol (16). This systematic review was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023481475), conducted in line with guidance set out in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (17), and reported in adherence to PRISMA statement, S1 Appendix (18). ### Data sources and search strategy A systematic literature search was conducted 22nd November 2023 in the following databases; PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE (OVID), PsycINFO (EBSCOhost), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Scopus and the Cochrane Library (OVID). This was supplemented by grey literature searches in OpenGrey, CADTH Grey Matters and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) as well as backward and forward citation chasing using an automated citation chaser (19). There were no restrictions placed on language or year of publication. Search terms included keywords to capture the intervention (e.g. “interactive dashboard”, “clinical audit”, “medical audit”, “benchmarking”, “data visualisation”) the population (e.g. “general practitioner”, “primary care*”) and the outcomes (e.g. “PIP”, “prescribing”). See S2 Appendix for electronic search reports. ### Eligibility criteria All interventional designs were eligible for inclusion including randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (e.g. cluster RCTs, step wedged RCTs and individually randomised RCTs) and non-randomised interventional studies (e.g. interrupted time series design and controlled before and after studies) as recommended by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) group. The population of interest was primary care prescribers including non-medical prescribers working in primary care (e.g. pharmacists). An interactive dashboard was defined as a platform designed to provide ongoing feedback of real-time (defined as no older than one year) prescribing data in a visual format and that allowed for comparative benchmarking against peers or a set standard. A true interactive dashboard allows direct manipulation of data with visual analytic tools, however studies that did not have an interactive element but provided feedback of multiple parameters and/or configurations from the dataset were also included. Simple clinical decision support interventions or audit and feedback interventions that did not give longitudinal and ongoing feedback of real-time data were both excluded. Multi-faceted interventions that included interactive dashboards alongside other components such as education, clinical decision support or targeted behavioural change strategies were included. The outcome of interest was any prescribing related outcome measure such as explicit prescribing criteria or prescribing rates (e.g. where a higher rate may reflect lower quality such as antibiotic, benzodiazepine or opioid use). ### Study selection and data extraction Identified records were uploaded to Covidence and independently assessed for inclusion based on title and abstract and then full text papers by two researchers (CMC, PM, AM, AW, FM), blinded to each other’s decisions, with disagreement resolved by consensus. Data was extracted independently by two researchers using a purposely developed data extraction tool in Covidence (CMC, PM), see S3 Appendix for a list of all data points extracted. Methodological quality assessment was assessed independently by two reviewers using the Cochrane EPOC risk of bias tool (CMC, PM) (20). ### Analysis The Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist (21) was used as a framework to narratively summarise interventions. For multi-faceted interventions this framework was utilised to describe the interactive dashboard component alone. We categorised effectiveness based on intervention type (for example if there was a truly interactive component to the dashboard or whether the dashboard was part of a multi-faceted intervention), outcome of interest (e.g. high-risk prescribing or antibiotic prescribing rates) and study design. A meta-analysis using a random-effects model was performed where at least two studies were comparable in terms of participants, study design and outcomes. Heterogeneity across studies was assessed using the I² statistic, with an I² value greater than 50% considered indicative of substantial heterogeneity. Although 12 studies were identified, a funnel plot was not performed due to the heterogeneity in study design and outcomes. Instead, a narrative assessment was conducted, acknowledging the potential limitations in detecting publication bias. ## Results ### Search Results A total of 12,918 records were identified from database searching and a further 197 from other sources. Following deduplication, 10,733 records were screened, with 119 full texts assessed for eligibility, and 12 studies, reported in 11 different papers, were included in the review, Figure 1. See S4 Appendix for a table of the excluded studies from full text review and their reason for exclusion. ![Figure 1](http://medrxiv.org/http://medrxiv.stage.highwire.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/08/22/2024.08.22.24312420/F1.medium.gif) [Figure 1](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/08/22/2024.08.22.24312420/F1) Figure 1 Study flow diagram ### Characteristics of included studies Of the 12 included studies, three were interrupted time series analyses (ITSA) (22–24), one was a controlled before and after study (25) and eight were RCTs (26–32). Four of the RCTs were a cluster design (27, 29, 31, 32). Two RCTs that targeted individual physician antibiotic prescribing were individually randomised at the physician level (26, 30) and the final RCT was a stepped wedge design where six clusters were sequentially allocated to the intervention every month (28). One paper described randomly assigning practices to one of two parallel cRCTs (32). In each cRCT, the control group in one trial served as the intervention group in the other, leading to a total of four distinct studies reported in the same paper. These studies were conducted simultaneously with the same intervention but focused on different outcomes. However, only two of these four studies were relevant for this systematic review, as the outcomes of the other two were not relevant. Therefore, both of the relevant studies from this paper were included in this review (32). In seven of the included papers, one ITSA and six RCTs, participants (either individual prescribers or practices) were unaware they had been recruited (23, 26, 27, 29–32). In two additional studies it is unclear whether practices/physicians were recruited and consented (22, 28) and in the final two studies practices from a defined region were invited to participate (24, 25). The number of participants included in the individual studies ranged from 12 to 1,401 practices and 43 to 3,426 physicians. None of the included studies recruited individual patients. Five studies (reported in four papers) counted the number of patients on whom the outcomes were assessed (i.e. included a denominator and numerator at the participant level) (23, 25, 29, 32). Six studies focused on antibiotic prescribing and used aggregated data, for example the rate of antibiotic prescriptions per 100 consultations or the proportion of all antibiotics that were broad-spectrum (22, 24, 26–28, 30). The remaining six studies (reported in five papers) focused on high-risk or potentially inappropriate prescribing (23, 25, 29, 31, 32). All of these studies reported the number of patients potentially at risk and affected by potentially inappropriate prescribing according to the criteria, except for one study that reported the mean number of patients per practice with an inappropriate bronchodilator prescription, but did not provide the numerator and denominator (31). ### Characteristics of interventions Although 12 studies, are included in this review, two studies were reported in the same paper and used the same study processes and intervention type but focused on different outcomes. For the purpose of describing the intervention, these two studies are considered as one. The characteristics of the interactive dashboards of the included studies are described based on the TIDieR checklist in Table 2 (21). The tailoring and modifications components of this framework were generally not applicable as these are often more relevant to implementation programmes, where interventions may need to be adapted to fit specific contexts or populations (21). The interventions identified in this systematic review were all designed for use within the context in which they were implemented. Only one study reported a modification where antibiotic prescribing feedback was initially based on the dispensing claim’s date, but in the second year of the study this was modified to reflect the actual prescription date (30). Four of the 11 interventions included had a true interactive component where the user could directly manipulate their data and had unlimited access to the dashboard within a defined period of time (22, 23, 25, 27). The remaining seven interventions all provided prescribers with longitudinal access to relatively real-time data. Six of the eleven studies included multi-faceted interventions, where the interactive dashboard was part of a broader programme (22, 23, 27–29, 32). Two of these were three arm cRCTs where one of the arms received an additional behavioural change component (27, 29). Two dashboards also alerted prescribers to individual patients with high-risk prescribing/ inadequate blood-test monitoring (23) or inappropriate bronchodilator prescriptions (31). View this table: [Table 1](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/08/22/2024.08.22.24312420/T1) Table 1 Characteristics of included studies View this table: [Table 2](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/08/22/2024.08.22.24312420/T2) Table 2 Characteristics of interventions ### Risk of bias in included studies Overall nine of the 11 included papers had a low risk of bias (22, 23, 26–32), Figure 2 (the two studies reported within the one paper were assessed as one as they had the same methodological design and study processes). See S5 Appendix for risk of bias graphs summarising the risk for each EPOC criterion. One ITSA had a moderate risk of bias (24), where there were significant losses to follow up amongst Canadian physicians that was inadequately addressed, in addition the COVID-19 pandemic was likely to have influenced antibiotic prescribing during the intervention period. There was also insufficient information on prevention of knowledge of allocated interventions and crude post-intervention prescribing rates were not presented which limited transparency (24). The included controlled before and after study had a high risk of bias, by virtue of its design (25). In addition there was a significant improvement in inappropriate aspirin prescribing prior to intervention implementation, this was clearly reported by the authors’ but unexplained (25), given this finding the intervention effect was not considered significant for the purpose of this review. ![Figure 2](http://medrxiv.org/http://medrxiv.stage.highwire.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/08/22/2024.08.22.24312420/F2.medium.gif) [Figure 2](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/08/22/2024.08.22.24312420/F2) Figure 2 Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Risk of bias summary ![Figure 3](http://medrxiv.org/http://medrxiv.stage.highwire.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/08/22/2024.08.22.24312420/F3.medium.gif) [Figure 3](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/08/22/2024.08.22.24312420/F3) Figure 3 Forest plot of randomised controlled trials exploring the intervention effect on patient level prescribing appropriateness ### Effectiveness of interventions Overall, six of the 12 included studies, two ITSAs (22, 23) and four RCTs (28, 29, 31, 32) demonstrated a significant effect on prescribing-related outcomes, Table 3. When exploring the intervention effect by outcome measure, two of the six studies that targeted antibiotic prescribing had a significant effect (22, 28). One was a prospective interrupted time series design where practices after the pre-intervention and wash-out periods received access to a web platform that provided educational material and interactive dashboards (22). Data was updated on a monthly basis and displayed as graphs illustrating monthly and yearly trends in the antibiotic prescribing rate that could be explored by visit type, primary location and provider (22). The effect of the intervention was explored by provider type (paediatric, internal medicine, family physicians and urgent care) with the family physician rate reported here, Table 3. The largest effect size was seen for this group, although significant results were seen in all groups (22). The other study that showed a significant effect on antibiotic prescribing was an RCT that focused on inappropriate antibiotic prescribing for respiratory tract infections (28), with the outcome measured at the visit level (i.e. the proportion of respiratory tract infection visits that resulted in the prescription of an antibiotic). Participating practices received an educational package and monthly reports by email which displayed the overall antibiotic prescribing rate and the rates of inappropriate antibiotic prescribing for defined respiratory tract infections, both of which were compared to the average and best performing practices (28). The remaining four studies that targeted antibiotic prescribing failed to show an effect on antibiotic prescribing rates (24, 26, 30) or broad-spectrum antibiotic prescribing (27). View this table: [Table 3](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/08/22/2024.08.22.24312420/T3) Table 3 Results of included studies Six studies (reported in five papers) explored the effect on inappropriate prescribing for other drugs groups (see S6 Appendix for a list of the indicators included in these studies) and four of these demonstrated a significant effect (23, 29, 31, 32). The remaining study exploring the effect on PIP was a controlled before and after study that had a high risk of bias (25). Although the authors reported a significant effect on inappropriate aspirin prescribing there was an unexplained significant improvement in this indicator during phase one of the study prior to the implementation of the aspirin dashboard (25). In addition no rates or inferential statistics for the effect of the dashboard on inappropriate metformin prescribing were reported as there were only 8 patients prescribed this medicine at follow up (25). The four studies that demonstrated a significant effect on PIP included one ITSA and three RCTs. The ITSA explored the effect of the routine roll-out of the SMASH intervention that provided feedback on the prevalence of each hazardous prescribing and inadequate blood-test monitoring indicator with comparisons to the local area (clinical commissioning group) average (23). There was a significant effect on high-risk prescribing (ARR -0.96%, 95% CI -1.12% to -0.79%) but not on inadequate blood-test monitoring (23), however there was a significant effect seen on the latter outcome at 24 weeks follow-up. In addition the largest reductions in high-risk prescribing were seen in practices with higher baseline rates and by 12 months follow-up there was significantly reduced inter-practice variation in the rates of potentially hazardous prescribing and inadequate blood test monitoring (23). The remaining three studies demonstrating a significant effect on PIP were RCTs where feedback with comparative rates of each of the included indicators were emailed to the practice every quarter (29, 31, 32). With respect to the intervention components five of the six studies that had multi-faceted interventions showed a significant effect (22, 23, 28, 29, 32), compared to one (31) of the five studies that just had the interactive dashboard component. Two cRCTs that identified individual patients within the dashboard (hazardous prescribing/inadequate blood test monitoring or inappropriate bronchodilator prescribing) both had a significant effect (31, 32). Four of the eight included RCTs measured the effect of the intervention on potentially inappropriate prescribing and presented results as proportions and odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (two of these trials were reported within the one paper) (28, 29, 32). However, one of these studies measured the proportion of inappropriate prescriptions at the visit level (28), the others were at the patient level (29, 32). Thus the three RCTs looking at the effect on appropriate prescribing measured at the patient level were included in the meta-analysis, where the overall effect size was OR 0.87 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.93), with a low heterogeneity (I2 =0.0%), see Figure 2. This lack of heterogeneity can be attributed to the similar intervention types across the included trials, as all three studies involved quarterly feedback reports giving temporal trends in prescribing across a series of high-risk metrics and ranked practices within the local area for comparison. ## Discussion ### Summary of results This systematic review aimed to explore the characteristics of interactive dashboard interventions designed to support safe prescribing and explore their effect on prescribing-related outcome measures. Given the nature of the intervention, where data is often fed back on a widespread basis and implemented as a policy, quasi-experimental designs, were included. Six of the 12 included studies demonstrated a significant effect and all of these had an overall low risk of bias (22, 23, 28, 29, 31, 32). Notably, only two of the six studies that explored the effect of these interventions on antibiotic prescribing showed a significant effect (28). It may be that recent campaigns to improve antimicrobial stewardship have already resulted in improvements, leaving less room for further advancements. Four of the five studies looking at potentially inappropriate prescribing showed a significant effect (23, 29, 31, 32). Potentially inappropriate or high-risk prescribing is more common in complex patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy (2) and lack of prescriber awareness has been identified as a barrier to addressing this (33). Thus, the difference in effect seen by outcome measure may be because PIP is often related to clinician oversight, whereas antibiotic prescribing reflects a more direct clinician decision and thus may be less amenable to change. This hypothesis is supported by the fact that both interventions that alerted prescribers to specific instances of PIP had a significant effect (23, 31). Similar to results presented in other systematic reviews exploring the effectiveness of interventions in addressing inappropriate polypharmacy (34), multi-faceted interventions were more often effective with five of the six multi-faceted interventions demonstrating a significant effect (22, 23, 28, 29, 32). In summary, interventions targeting potentially inappropriate prescribing, that included multifaceted elements seemed to have a beneficial effect on outcomes. Audit and feedback is known to lead to small improvements in professional behaviour, as evidenced by a systematic review of 140 studies, including a meta-analysis of 108 comparisons from 70 studies, which found a median absolute increase of 4.3% in healthcare professionals’ compliance with desired practices (9). Increased frequency of feedback, coupled with explicit, measurable targets and specific action plans, were associated with greater effectiveness (9). The interventions included in this review all included ongoing feedback of relatively contemporaneous data, with comparisons to specific set targets or comparative benchmarking. The three studies included in our smaller meta-analysis estimated a 13% reduction in the odds of high-risk prescribing when the intervention was applied, consistent with the findings above. Similar to pervious findings, interventions that identified particular instances of high-risk prescribing and multi-faceted interventions had positive findings more often compared to studies that did not incorporate these features (9). With recent advancements in data infrastructure and machine learning techniques, the potential to scale these interventions has increased. Even a modest effect, when implemented at scale, could have significant implications for health systems and individual patients. ### Strengths and limitations This systematic review included a broad and detailed search strategy including citation chasing and grey literature searches of clinical trial registries to reduce the risk of publication bias. Including quasi-experimental designs meant we captured two large ITSAs that explored the implementation of novel interactive dashboards. Given the heterogeneous nature of the outcome measures included (different prescribing criteria, measured at different levels (e.g. practice and visit level as well as patient level) it was only possible to perform a meta-analysis for three studies and it was not possible to conduct a funnel plot to formally assess publication bias. ### Implications for research, policy and practice Developing true interactive dashboards directly embedded into practices systems that allow clinicians to identify specific instances of high risk prescribing and compare their prescribing quality with peers, has the potential for significantly supporting safe and effective prescribing. However, this approach will involve necessary collaboration with the software vendors, who are often private enterprises and thus driven by cost containment. In addition, the cost of such developments will be mostly incurred by practices who purchase these software systems. Encouraging competition between software providers, incentivising software providers to develop these inbuilt systems to enhance quality and safety and, as such systems becomes the norm, updating regulatory standards for practice software systems may increase implementation. A second complication of identifying high-risk prescribing is the need for patient-level factors such as co-prescriptions, age and co-morbidities, meaning this analysis needs to occur within the practices’ own databases with only aggregate data exported for benchmarking purposes. In addition, there may be legal and data regulation implications about sharing this aggregate data, although in the UK aggregate practice-level analysis of publicly available prescribing data is available for the public to view at openprescibing.net. This approach is low cost, but feedback using this anonymous publicly available data is less granular, and as was demonstrated in this review, feedback of practice level prescribing rates may be less effective at changing prescriber behaviour. This review identified several gaps in the existing literature. Only 12 studies met the inclusion criteria, with just four employing true interactive dashboards. The limited number of studies suggests a need for further research exploring the effectiveness of interactive dashboards designed to optimise prescribing. A key challenge in conducting the meta-analysis was the heterogeneity of outcome measures, which were reported at various levels, including the prescription, patient, prescriber, and practice levels. The development of a core outcome set for prescribing-related measures that can be consistently applied across studies utilising routine prescribing or dispensing datasets may be one way of addressing this and would facilitate more meaningful comparisons and benefit future meta-analyses. Finally, routine evaluations of policies that utilise this data to optimise prescribing are essential. Systematic and standardised evaluations would provide valuable insights into the effectiveness of policy interventions aimed at optimising prescribing, thereby enhancing clinical outcomes and health system efficiency. ## Conclusion Interactive dashboards have the potential to support safe and effective prescribing in primary care. Multi-faceted interventions that target high-risk prescribing are more likely to be effective. To support their implementation, it is essential to establish the necessary data infrastructure within primary care systems. With advancements in data infrastructure and analysis, these interventions could have a significant impact if implemented at scale. ## Supporting information S* Appendix [[supplements/312420_file05.pdf]](pending:yes) ## Data Availability All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript ## Supporting Information S1 Appendix: PRISMA Checklist S2 Appendix: Electronic search reports S3 Appendix: List of all data points extracted from included studies S4 Appendix: List of all studies with reasons for exclusion from full text review S5 Appendix: Risk of bias graphs S6 Appendix: List of all endpoints for included studies ## Data Availability No new primary data were collected for this study, as the review synthesises publicly available data from published studies. All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article and its supplementary information files. This includes the search strategies used for each database, details of the included studies, and any additional data extracted during the review process. The study protocol is available as an open-access publication and can be accessed directly at [https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/7-44](https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/7-44). ## Competing interests The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. ## Funding CMC is funded by a HRB post-doctoral Clinician Scientist Fellowship award (CSF-2023-012) [https://www.hrb.ie/funding/](https://www.hrb.ie/funding/). PM is funded by an ICGP Post CSCST Fellowship award. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. ## Acknowledgments Killian Walsh; Information Specialist, RCSI library assisted with search strategy. Mobeena Naz; Medical Student, RCSI assisted with title and abstract screening. ## Abbreviations PIP : potentially inappropriate prescribing EHR : electronic healthcare records RCT : randomised controlled trial ITSA : interrupted time series analysis CBA : controlled before and after study EPOC : Effective Practice and Organisation of Care TIDieR : Template for Intervention Description and Replication Abx : antibiotic SABA : short acting beta agonist inhaler LABA : long acting beta agonist inhaler NSAID : non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug eGFR : estimated glomerular filtration rate CKD : chronic kidney disease CVD : cardiovascular disease CCG : clinical commissioning group NICE : National Institute for Clinical Excellence RTI : respiratory tract infection CDSS : clinical decision support-system ARR : absolute risk reduction OR : odds ratio DDD : defined daily dosage CI : confidence interval RP : risky prescribing AF : atrial fibrillation * Received August 22, 2024. * Revision received August 22, 2024. * Accepted August 22, 2024. * © 2024, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory The copyright holder for this pre-print is the author. All rights reserved. The material may not be redistributed, re-used or adapted without the author's permission. ## References 1. 1.Fortin M, Lapointe L, Hudon C, Vanasse A, Ntetu AL, Maltais D. Multimorbidity and quality of life in primary care: a systematic review. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. 2004;2:51. 2. 2.Pérez T, Moriarty F, Wallace E, McDowell R, Redmond P, Fahey T. Prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescribing in older people in primary care and its association with hospital admission: longitudinal study. BMJ. 2018;363:k4524. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjE3OiIzNjMvbm92MTNfOS9rNDUyNCI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDI0LzA4LzIyLzIwMjQuMDguMjIuMjQzMTI0MjAuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 3. 3.Wallace E, Salisbury C, Guthrie B, Lewis C, Fahey T, Smith SM. Managing patients with multimorbidity in primary care. BMJ. 2015;350:h176. [FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiRlVMTCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjE2OiIzNTAvamFuMjBfMi9oMTc2IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjQvMDgvMjIvMjAyNC4wOC4yMi4yNDMxMjQyMC5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 4. 4.Jung Yin Tsang MS, Thomas Blakeman, Rupert Payne, Darren M Aschcroft. Protocol for the development and validation of a Polypharmacy Assessment Score for potentially problematic polypharmacy PREPRINT (Version 1) available at Research Square 2023. 5. 5.Chang CB, Chan DC. Comparison of published explicit criteria for potentially inappropriate medications in older adults. Drugs Aging. 2010;27(12):947–57. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.2165/11584850-000000000-00000&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21087065&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F08%2F22%2F2024.08.22.24312420.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000285534800001&link_type=ISI) 6. 6.Radomski TR, Decker A, Khodyakov D, Thorpe CT, Hanlon JT, Roberts MS, et al. Development of a Metric to Detect and Decrease Low-Value Prescribing in Older Adults. JAMA network open. 2022;5(2):e2148599–e. 7. 7.Dimitrow MS, Airaksinen MS, Kivela SL, Lyles A, Leikola SN. Comparison of prescribing criteria to evaluate the appropriateness of drug treatment in individuals aged 65 and older: a systematic review. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2011;59(8):1521–30. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/j.1532-5415.2011.03497.x&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21797829&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F08%2F22%2F2024.08.22.24312420.atom) 8. 8.Curtis HJ, Goldacre B. OpenPrescribing: normalised data and software tool to research trends in English NHS primary care prescribing 1998–2016. 2018;8(2):e019921. 9. 9.Ivers N, Jamtvedt G, Flottorp S, Young JM, Odgaard-Jensen J, French SD, et al. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012(6):Cd000259. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F08%2F22%2F2024.08.22.24312420.atom) 10. 10.Kwan JL, Lo L, Ferguson J, Goldberg H, Diaz-Martinez JP, Tomlinson G, et al. Computerised clinical decision support systems and absolute improvements in care: meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials. 2020;370:m3216. 11. 11.Williams R, Keers R, Gude WT, Jeffries M, Davies C, Brown B, et al. SMASH! The Salford medication safety dashboard. 2018;25(3):183–93. 12. 12.Cole JA, Gonçalves-Bradley DC, Alqahtani M, Barry HE, Cadogan C, Rankin A, et al. Interventions to improve the appropriate use of polypharmacy for older people. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023(10). 13. 13.Mekonnen AB, Redley B, de Courten B, Manias E. Potentially inappropriate prescribing and its associations with health-related and system-related outcomes in hospitalised older adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2021;87(11):4150–72. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/bcp.14870&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=34008195&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F08%2F22%2F2024.08.22.24312420.atom) 14. 14.Daoust R, Paquet J, Marquis M, Chauny J-M, Williamson D, Huard V, et al. Evaluation of Interventions to Reduce Opioid Prescribing for Patients Discharged From the Emergency Department: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA network open. 2022;5(1):e2143425–e. 15. 15.Mattsson M, Boland F, Kirke C, Flood M, Wallace E, Walsh ME, et al. The impact of lidocaine plaster prescribing reduction strategies: A comparison of two national health services in Europe. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2023;89(8):2349–58. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/bcp.15779&link_type=DOI) 16. 16.Moynagh P, Mannion, Á, Wei, A, Clyne, B, Moriarty, F, McCarthy, C. Effectiveness of interactive dashboards to optimise prescribing in primary care: a protocol for a systematic review [version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review]. HRB open research. 2024;7(44). 17. 17.Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.4 (updated August 2023): Cochrane; 2023. Available from: [www.training.cochrane.org/handbook](http://www.training.cochrane.org/handbook). 18. 18.Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021:n71. 19. 19.Haddaway NR, Grainger MJ, Gray CT. Citationchaser: A tool for transparent and efficient forward and backward citation chasing in systematic searching. Research synthesis methods. 2022;13(4):533–45. 20. 20.Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC). What study designs can be considered for inclusion in an EPOC review and what should they be called? 2017 13/03/2024. Available from: [https://epoc.cochrane.org/sites/epoc.cochrane.org/files/uploads/EPOC%20Study%20Designs%20About.pdf](https://epoc.cochrane.org/sites/epoc.cochrane.org/files/uploads/EPOC%20Study%20Designs%20About.pdf). 21. 21.Hoffmann TC, Glasziou PP, Boutron I, Milne R, Perera R, Moher D, et al. Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. 2014;348:g1687. 22. 22.Davidson LE, Gentry EM, Priem JS, Kowalkowski M, Spencer MD. A multimodal intervention to decrease inappropriate outpatient antibiotic prescribing for upper respiratory tract infections in a large integrated healthcare system. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2023;44(3):392–9. 23. 23.Peek N, Gude WT, Keers RN, Williams R, Kontopantelis E, Jeffries M, et al. Evaluation of a pharmacist-led actionable audit and feedback intervention for improving medication safety in UK primary care: An interrupted time series analysis. PLoS Med. 2020;17(10):1–17. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003501&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F08%2F22%2F2024.08.22.24312420.atom) 24. 24. Soucy Jean-Paul R, Low M, Acharya Kamal R, Ellen M, Hulth A, Löfmark S, et al. Evaluation of an automated feedback intervention to improve antibiotic prescribing among primary care physicians (OPEN Stewardship): a multinational controlled interrupted time-series study. Microbiology spectrum. 2024;12(4):e00017–24. 25. 25.de Lusignan S, Hinton W, Seidu S, Mathew M, Feher MD, Munro N, et al. Dashboards to reduce inappropriate prescribing of metformin and aspirin: A quality assurance programme in a primary care sentinel network. Prim Care Diabetes. 2021;15(6):1075–9. 26. 26.Aghlmandi S, Halbeisen FS, Saccilotto R, Godet P, Signorell A, Sigrist S, et al. Effect of Antibiotic Prescription Audit and Feedback on Antibiotic Prescribing in Primary Care: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA internal medicine. 2023;183(3):213–20. 27. 27.Curtis HJ, Bacon S, Croker R, Walker AJ, Perera R, Hallsworth M, et al. Evaluating the impact of a very low-cost intervention to increase practices’ engagement with data and change prescribing behaviour: a randomized trial in English primary care. Fam Pract. 2021;38(4):373–80. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/fampra/cmaa128&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F08%2F22%2F2024.08.22.24312420.atom) 28. 28.Dutcher L, Degnan KO, Adu-Gyamfi AB, Lautenbach E, Cressman L, David MZ, et al. Improving Outpatient Antibiotic Prescribing for Respiratory Tract Infections in Primary Care; a Stepped-Wedge Cluster Randomized Trial. Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. 2021;74(6):947–56. 29. 29.Guthrie B, Kavanagh K, Robertson C, Barnett K, Treweek S, Petrie D, et al. Data feedback and behavioural change intervention to improve primary care prescribing safety (EFIPPS): multicentre, three arm, cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 2016;354:i4079. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjE3OiIzNTQvYXVnMThfMi9pNDA3OSI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDI0LzA4LzIyLzIwMjQuMDguMjIuMjQzMTI0MjAuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 30. 30.Hemkens LG, Saccilotto R, Leon Reyes S, Glinz D, Zumbrunn T, Grolimund O, et al. Personalized Prescription Feedback Using Routinely Collected Data to Reduce Antibiotic Use in Primary Care: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA internal medicine. 2017;177(2):176–83. 31. 31.MacBride-Stewart S, Marwick C, Ryan M, Guthrie B. Feedback of actionable individual patient prescription data to improve asthma prescribing: pragmatic cluster randomised trial in 233 UK general practices. Br J Gen Pract. 2022;72(722):e627–33. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoiYmpncCI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMToiNzIvNzIyL2U2MjciO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyNC8wOC8yMi8yMDI0LjA4LjIyLjI0MzEyNDIwLmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 32. 32.Willis TA, Collinson M, Glidewell L, Farrin AJ, Holland M, Meads D, et al. An adaptable implementation package targeting evidence-based indicators in primary care: A pragmatic cluster-randomised evaluation. PLoS Med. 2020;17(2):1–20. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003501&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F08%2F22%2F2024.08.22.24312420.atom) 33. 33.Anderson K, Stowasser D, Freeman C, Scott I. Prescriber barriers and enablers to minimising potentially inappropriate medications in adults: a systematic review and thematic synthesis. BMJ open. 2014;4(12). 34. 34.Clyne B, Fitzgerald C, Quinlan A, Hardy C, Galvin R, Fahey T, et al. Interventions to Address Potentially Inappropriate Prescribing in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2016;64(6):1210–22. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/jgs.14133&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=27321600&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F08%2F22%2F2024.08.22.24312420.atom)