==== Front
HRB Open Res
HRB Open Res
HRB Open Research
2515-4826
F1000 Research Limited London, UK

37398919
10.12688/hrbopenres.13674.1
Study Protocol
Articles
The medication self-management work system of patients and informal carers from a human factors & ergonomics perspective: A scoping review protocol
[version 1; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations]

Negoescu Eduard Conceptualization Data Curation Investigation Methodology Project Administration Resources Validation Writing – Original Draft Preparation Writing – Review & Editing https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4387-8804
1
Marcilly Romaric Conceptualization Funding Acquisition Investigation Methodology Project Administration Resources Supervision Validation Writing – Original Draft Preparation Writing – Review & Editing https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7077-7267
23
Cromie Samuel Conceptualization Funding Acquisition Investigation Methodology Project Administration Resources Supervision Validation Writing – Original Draft Preparation Writing – Review & Editing https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5023-0435
4
Koay Aaron Conceptualization Funding Acquisition Investigation Methodology Project Administration Resources Validation Writing – Original Draft Preparation Writing – Review & Editing https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9165-9171
15
Grimes Tamasine Conceptualization Data Curation Funding Acquisition Investigation Methodology Project Administration Resources Supervision Validation Writing – Original Draft Preparation Writing – Review & Editing https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7154-3243
a1
1 School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Panoz Institute, Trinity College Dublin, The University of Dublin, Dublin, D02 PN40, Ireland
2 Univ. Lille, CHU Lille, ULR 2694 - METRICS : Évaluation des technologies de santé et des pratiques médicales, Lille, F-59000, France
3 INSERM, CIC-IT 1403, Lille, F-59000, France
4 Centre for Innovative Human Systems (CIHS), School of Psychology, Aras an Phiarsaigh, Trinity College Dublin, The University of Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
5 Institute for Global Health, University College London, London, WC1N 1EH, UK
a tagrimes@tcd.ie
No competing interests were disclosed.

10 1 2023
2023
6 43 1 2023
Copyright: © 2023 Negoescu E et al.
2023
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Background: Healthcare is increasingly delivered closer to the patients’ homes, which increases the level of responsibility that patients and informal carers take for managing their medication-taking, although this is associated with hazards. Medication self-management has been conceptualised as work taking place in non-formal settings ( e.g., households), which are complex systems. Human factors and ergonomics (HFE) models provide a framework for studying such systems. The Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) is one framework that considers work system elements and how they interact with each other to shape processes that lead to outcomes ( e.g., safety). Given the increasing amount of diverse research on patient and carer work and on system-shaping factors, the objectives of this review are to: (i) identify available evidence in a structured and systems-oriented way, (ii) explore approaches that have been applied and (iii) highlight research gaps.

Methods: An evidence-informed patient, public and carer involvement (PPCI) approach will be implemented at all post-protocol stages to ensure the relevance, uptake and translation of the scoping review. The review will systematically search MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo, CINAHL and Web of Science to identify relevant qualitative studies. The methodological approach will be guided by Johanna Briggs Institute methodology and will be reported according to the PRISMA-ScR standards. Data charting and qualitative content analysis directed by SEIPS will explore how the work system and its constituting elements have been described in the literature and identify specific gaps and opportunities for future research. Borrowing from realist approaches, included studies will be assessed in terms of richness and relevance to our review question.

Discussion: Strengths of this scoping review include PPCI and a converging focus on medication safety, medication self-management and HFE. Ultimately, this approach will advance our understanding of this complex system and guide opportunities to broaden and strengthen the evidence base.

Human factors and ergonomics
household
patient
drug therapy
medication error
systems-based analysis
patient and public involvement
PPI
French Ministries of Europe and Foreign Affairs and of Higher Education, Research and InnovationTrinity College DublinProvost'sPhDAward2019 Irish Research Council and Health Research BoardUlyssesAward2020 TG is the Principal Investigator on the Irish Research Council and Health Research Board Ulysses Award 2020. This work was also supported by the French Ministries of Europe and Foreign Affairs and of Higher Education, Research and Innovation. EN is supported by the Provost’s PhD Award 2019 awarded by Trinity College Dublin. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

There is a global drive to deliver healthcare as close to home as appropriate 1, 2 , and to reduce exposure to unnecessary hospital admission. In this context, patients and their carers are taking on increasing levels of responsibility and burden of medication management 3, 4 . Both positive and negative outcomes have been associated with lay medication practices in the home. For example, patients may sometimes successfully and conveniently integrate medication work into the structure of their daily lives 3 . However, many hazards have been identified, including the sharing of prescribed medication 5, 6 , non-adherence 7 , hoarding 8 , unsafe storage 9 , inappropriate disposal 10 , inappropriate dosage 11 and errors made by patients and their carers 12, 13 .

This medication management by patients or their carers has been conceptualised as work, that is, effort expended to complete tasks associated with all aspects of medication use to achieve the desired beneficial effects and reduce the likelihood of undesirable effects 3, 4, 14 . Such medication work is self-managed in non-formal settings ( e.g., households), which are complex systems that can be explored using human factors and ergonomics (HFE) approaches. HFE seeks to understand how people and other elements within a system interact 15 , and to apply systems-thinking models to “optimise human well-being and overall system performance” 16 . The Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) is one such model 17 . SEIPS considers how work system elements (people, tools, tasks, technologies, environments and their organisation) and the interaction between these elements shape work processes (at social, physical or cognitive levels), which in turn produce work outcomes that may strengthen or weaken safety. For instance, SEIPS has been used to explore household medication safety 14, 18 . Further, a recent scoping review exploring contributory factors related to patient work identified a substantial number of publications on the topic of medication management 4 , indicating that a dedicated review adopting a HFE perspective on the topic is needed.

Therefore, given the increasing body of work that patients and informal carers perform to self-manage medication in non-formal settings, there is a need to gather the evidence about this work in a structured, systems-oriented way, in order to identify research gaps and opportunities to advance research, policy and practice.

The present need for research

Preliminary searches suggested the current body of literature is heterogenous, which reflects a need to unify and structure this knowledge to take a considerate HFE approach to study lay medication management. Moreover, the increasing prevalence and global burden of polypharmacy 19 add complexity to the work carried out by patients and carers in managing their medication. Finally, the need to research lay medication management is emphasised by the fact that pre-existing health inequalities can widen even more during public health emergencies such as the COVID-19 pandemic 20 , as evidenced by outcomes such as medication-related harm.

Objectives

This scoping review aims to describe and categorise the available evidence about non-formal medication self-management work systems. The scoping review aims to (i) use a HFE perspective to identify and structure studies about medication self-management as practiced by patients and informal carers in non-formal settings, (ii) to explore the data analytical approach applied in these studies and (iii) to identify gaps in the available body of evidence and opportunities for future research.

Methods

Patient, public and carer involvement

Patient, public and carer involvement (PPCI) in research is important to optimise the relevance and meaning of the research to those affected by the topic and to increase the uptake and translation of research into sustainable practice 21, 22 . PPCI supports stakeholders, such as end users and professional or non-professional providers, to have parity with researchers. This helps stakeholders, patients and carers maintain a central status in the three domains of quality in healthcare, namely clinical effectiveness, patient safety and patient experience 23, 24 .

This scoping review will incorporate and report on PPCI in line with the Authors and Consumers Together Impacting on eVidencE (ACTIVE) framework 22 . Contributors will be invited to participate on a continuous basis at the following stages: selection of studies, data collection, qualitative analysis, interpretation of findings, writing and publishing, knowledge translation and impact, including outreach activities and the co-design of lay summary materials. A suitable level of engagement (leading, controlling, influencing, contributing or receiving) will be jointly decided with PPCI contributors identified on each occasion, having regard to their preferences and the resources available at each stage. Training will be provided to support the learning needs required to meet the tasks.

Protocol development

The methodological approach is informed by scoping review guidelines published by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) 25 and by recommendations on implementing PPCI according to the ACTIVE framework 22 . Further, the reporting of this protocol observes the items on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist that are relevant to a protocol 26 . Additionally, a PRISMA extension for protocols (PRISMA-P) checklist 27 has been completed (access is detailed in the Data Availability section 28 ).

Eligibility criteria

The eligibility criteria were developed around a modified version of the PCC tool (participants, concept, context) 25 , presented below. Relevant peer-reviewed primary studies will be included while secondary studies will not, although references cited therein will be screened. This approach will help prevent inadvertent double counting of data originating from primary studies 25 . There is no restriction on the date of study publication. We will attempt to translate studies published in languages other than English.

Participants. Studies with a primary focus on lay participants such as patients and their non-professional carers ( e.g., family members or laypeople who may or may not have received training) will be included. Studies focusing on healthcare practitioners, formally employed caregivers or professional carers will be excluded.

Concept. Studies addressing any aspect of medication self-management are eligible for inclusion. For the purpose of this review, we consider medication self-management as any task undertaken by the patient, or their carer, for the purpose of using their medication, at any stage of the medication management process. Medication will be defined as an authorised allopathic product that may be prescribed or non-prescribed (available over-the-counter).

Context. Studies exclusively addressing household, domestic or other non-formal healthcare settings will be included. Studies that have an element of professional or semi-professional service provision will be excluded.

Study design. Eligible studies will include those that analysed or presented qualitative data by considering principles of human factors or ergonomics, systems engineering, sociotechnical or socioecological systems, or other relevant theories or frameworks, which enabled the identification of at least one of the following concepts: work system elements ( e.g., people, environments, tasks, tools, technologies), work processes ( e.g., obtaining supply, administering, monitoring), work outcomes ( e.g., humanistic, organisational, clinical or economic) and factors (facilitators and barriers to safe and effective medicines management) associated with the work system.

Information sources

Five databases will be used to retrieve relevant literature, namely MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo, CINAHL and Web of Science.

Search strategy

The search strategy, shown in Table 1, was constructed for the MEDLINE and Embase databases using the Embase interface and was endorsed by a subject librarian. The systematic search will be tailored to the interface for PsycINFO, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Web of Science.

Table 1. Combined search strategy adapted for the MEDLINE and Embase databases through the Embase interface.

Concepts (combined with
the ‘AND’ operator)	Search terms	
Laypeople	lay:ab,ti,kw OR layperson$:ab,ti,kw OR laypeople:ab,ti,kw OR ((lay NEAR/1 people$):ti,ab,kw) OR patient$:ti,ab,kw
OR sufferer$:ti,ab,kw OR carer$:ab,ti,kw OR partner$:ti,ab,kw OR family:ti,ab,kw OR families:ti,ab,kw OR

'laypeople'/exp OR 'caregiver'/exp OR 'layperson'/exp OR 'patient'/exp OR ‘family’/exp OR ‘family relation’/exp	
Non-professional
settings	household*:ab,ti,kw OR domicil*:ab,ti,kw OR dwelling$:ti,ab,kw OR apartment$:ti,ab,kw OR house$:ti,ab,kw
OR ((personal NEAR/1 space$):ti,ab,kw) OR abode*:ti,ab,kw OR home$:ti,ab,kw OR residence$:ti,ab,kw OR
((non NEAR/1 professional$ NEAR/1 setting$):ti,ab,kw) OR

‘household’/exp OR ‘community dwelling person’/exp OR ‘personal space’/exp OR ‘residence’/exp	
Medication	medication$:ab,ti,kw OR medicine$:ab,ti,kw OR drug$:ab,ti,kw OR pharmacotherap*:ab,ti,kw OR
prescription$:ti,ab,kw OR (over NEAR/2 counter):ti,ab,kw OR remedy:ti,ab,kw OR remedies:ti,ab,kw OR

'drug therapy'/exp OR 'drug administration'/exp OR 'prescription'/exp OR 'prescription drug'/exp OR 'non prescription drug'/exp	
Study design: data to be
presented or analysed
using human factors and
ergonomics perspectives	((system$ NEAR/1 engineering NEAR/1 initiative$ NEAR/1 for NEAR/1 patient$ NEAR/1 safety):ab,ti,kw) OR
SEIPS:ti,ab,kw OR ((structure$ NEAR/1 process NEAR/1 outcome$):ti,ab,kw) OR ((system$ NEAR/1 thinking):
ti,ab,kw) OR ((system$ NEAR/1 analys?s):ab,ti,kw) OR ((human NEAR/1 factor$):ab,ti,kw) OR ergonomic$:
ab,ti,kw OR ((work NEAR/1 system$):ab,ti,kw) OR ((medication NEAR/1 work):ab,ti,kw) OR sociotechnical:
ab,ti,kw OR ((socio NEAR/1 technical):ti,ab,kw) OR ((socio NEAR/1 ecological):ti,ab,kw) OR socioecological:
ti,kw,ab OR macroergonomic$:ab,ti,kw OR mesoergonomic$:ab,ti,kw OR microergonomic$:ab,ti,kw OR
((system$ NEAR/1 engineering):ab,ti,kw) OR barrier$:ab,ti,kw OR impediment$:ab,ti,kw OR obstacle$:
ti,ab,kw OR facilitator$:ti,ab,kw OR enabler$:ti,ab,kw OR

'human factor'/exp OR 'human factors'/exp OR 'human factors research'/exp OR 'human factors
engineering'/exp OR 'ergonomics'/exp OR 'sociotechnical system'/exp OR ‘socioecological model’/exp OR
‘systems theory’/exp OR ‘system analysis’/exp OR 'macroergonomics'/exp OR 'barriers'/exp OR ‘obstacles’/
exp OR 'facilitator'/exp	

Each search string will focus on four key concepts: 1) medication use; 2) by a population of patients or informal carers; 3) within non-formal settings; as reported by 4) studies related to the field of HFE which can provide details around work systems, processes and outcomes. The four strings will be combined with the ‘AND’ operator to yield relevant results.

Selection of studies

Search results from each database will be uploaded to EndNote (Clarivate, London, UK) and de-duplicated. This body of citations will be imported to the Covidence systematic review software (Veritas Health Innovation, Melbourne, Australia), where further de-duplication and screening will be performed. All reviewers will independently review a proportion of titles and abstracts to ensure a common understanding of the application of eligibility criteria. In round one, two reviewers will then independently screen each study by title and abstract. Selected studies from round one will advance to round two where two reviewers will independently screen the article full text to determine final eligibility. Where differences in opinion arise or when a decision cannot be made at either round one or two, consensus will be reached ideally by discussion or through arbitration by another reviewer. A PRISMA flow diagram detailing study selection will be presented in the review 26 .

Data charting process

The review will employ the SEIPS model 17 to structure the charting of reported work system elements (persons, tasks, tools, internal and external environments, organisation), work processes and work outcomes.

A predefined list of elements, shown below, will be used to chart data 25 . Data charting will be piloted on three included studies independently by two authors and will be iteratively adapted to ensure all relevant items are collected 25 . One reviewer will then undertake data charting on the remaining studies. When 10% of studies are charted, a cross-check will be performed by a second reviewer to ensure all meaningful semantic units were charted and classified appropriately, and to enable early diagnosis and repair of issues. If inconsistencies arise, a subsequent cross-check will be performed when 25% of all studies are charted. Should discrepancies persist, all included studies will be cross-checked.

The data charting form will record the following elements, which will be analysed to meet the corresponding review objectives 25 :

1. Study characteristics including country and date of publication, study aims, design, sample size and participant characteristics,

2. Methodological details related to the use of conceptual or theoretical frameworks or methods of data analysis or synthesis,

3. Data that have been analysed or presented from a human factors or systems-based perspective, and which relate to medication self-management as practised by patients and informal carers in non-formal settings. This includes data relevant to work systems, processes, outcomes and related factors (facilitators and barriers),

4. Reported knowledge gaps and recommendations for future work.

Data analysis

Descriptive statistics will be used to characterise the body of studies ( e.g., date and place of publication and participant demographics) and will be carried out using Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, Washington). Further, the analytical approaches applied in the included studies will be described.

Basic deductive qualitative content analysis 25 , directed by the SEIPS model, will be employed to report a list of the work system elements, interactions and outcomes reported in the body of studies, thereby exploring medication self-management as practiced by patients and informal carers. This will also facilitate the identification of research gaps in the current body of evidence and opportunities for future research. An appropriate data analysis/management tool e.g., Microsoft Excel or NVivo (QSR International) will be used to support qualitative data analysis and management.

Included studies will be assessed during data charting in terms of their richness (adequacy of data in the included studies) and relevance (the degree of fit of the included studies to our review questions). Borrowing from the realist paradigm and guidance for assessing the confidence in evidence from reviews of qualitative research 29 , a five-point richness scale will be used to estimate the depth of theoretical application of human factors theories and perspectives, and a five-point relevance scale will be used to determine how relevant each study is to our review objectives. This assessment of richness and relevance will complement the above-mentioned method in meeting the objective to identify research gaps and direct future studies.

This deductive coding approach may not accommodate all charted data, as some may fall outside of SEIPS categories, including data that can help contextualise phenomena 30 . Nevertheless, this can be addressed by accommodating inductive approaches that are sensitive enough, especially with respect to subsequent analyses of these data.

Data presentation

Charted data units will be aggregated and analysed. Findings related to the categorisation of data will be presented in a tabulated form for each research objective. Gaps in the available body of evidence and opportunities for future research will be identified by deductively coding the data using SEIPS and then mapping the aggregated coded data against SEIPS 25 . Descriptive summaries will accompany each resulting data set and will respond to each research question.

Risk of bias and quality assessment

Consistent with guidance for scoping reviews, which aim to describe, summarise and present available data 25 , quality or risk of bias assessments about how well each included study addressed its objective will not be performed.

Research ethics committee approval

Approval from a research ethics committee is not necessary in line with scoping review methodology, because the data being used are available in the public domain.

Study status

The literature search has been completed and screening by title and abstract is underway.

Discussion

This scoping review aims to describe and categorise the available evidence about non-formal medication self-management work systems. Using the SEIPS model 17 , the scoping review will map the available evidence to describe each concept e.g., work system elements, the relevant processes and resulting outcomes, the relevance and the richness of the available data to address the research objectives, and will facilitate the identification of research gaps and opportunities for future work. The findings will inform whether a future systematic review or primary studies would best contribute to the construction or validation of a framework to support research and development about a systems-based analysis of non-formal medication self-management.

The proposed review has a number of strengths. The suggested PPCI approach will enhance the likelihood that patients and their representatives are at the centre of the review, that the research is relevant and meaningful and that it will be utilised to inform subsequent research, policy or practice. Adherence to the ACTIVE framework 22 will enhance the PPCI approach employed. The review team have experience across the relevant fields of medication management, medication safety, human factors and ergonomics, and systematic reviewing. The convergence of these and the PPCI experiences will enhance the rigour of the data charting and interpretation.

Data availability

Underlying data

No data are associated with this article.

Reporting guidelines

Zenodo: PRISMA-P checklist for ‘The Medication Self-Management Work System of Patients and Informal Carers from a Human Factors & Ergonomics Perspective: A Scoping Review Protocol’. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7463641 28 .

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0).

10.21956/hrbopenres.14953.r34444
Reviewer response for version 1
Sutherland Adam B 1Referee https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5198-3727

1 The University of Manchester, Manchester, England, UK
16 8 2023 Copyright: © 2023 Sutherland AB
2023
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Version 1recommendationapprove-with-reservations
Thanks so much for allowing me to review this protocol for a scoping review relating to the potential harms associated with the increased reliance on patients and carers to medication-related work in non-clinical settings. 

It's certainly an interesting field for study, and a scoping review using HFE methods is welcomed. I have just a couple of comments and reflections. While you state that you will involve patients and carers in the project, you have not described HOW they would be identified or recruited.  I note that a previous reviewer has asked if they have been involved in the identification of the question therefore my comment stems from this. Who are your potential PPCI representatives, how were they identified and recruited, and how will you support them in this endeavour?

Your search strategy is specifically seeking papers with a HFE focus, and my worry is that you're limiting the review from the start.  HFE is still relatively new in healthcare, and newer still in healthcare outside of formal care environments.  There is a limited number of theoretically sound studies in this field in hospitals, and even fewer in non-clinical settings.  I would not be surprised if you identified a relatively small number of papers, all clustered from 2010 onwards.  I note that you state that the literature search has already been conducted.  However if you find a paucity of studies in your initial sweep, I would recommend broadening your search criteria to include qualitative observational studies of patient/carer medication work WITHOUT an HFE approach.

I struggle with the conceptual "othering" of patients and carers in the field of medication work.  As other reviewers have pointed out, there are elements of the medication process where patients and professionals co-exist, and my concerns come from our "work as imagined" and "work as prescribed" and the potential for undervaluing the importance of the patient's "work as done."  Patients and carers have agency and autonomy, and what we classify as "errors" are in many cases rational decisions taken to accommodate the medication into day to day life (see both the May and Maidment citations provided by Reviewer 2).  How will your protocol support the identification of and separation of these two concepts?  

Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Partly

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes

Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

No

Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

Reviewer Expertise:

Paediatric medicines safety; Human Factors and Ergonomics; Complex Systems and Theory Experience-Based Co-Production;

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

10.21956/hrbopenres.14953.r34443
Reviewer response for version 1
Mentler Tilo 1Referee https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8138-6536

1 Trier University of Applied Sciences, Trier, Germany
29 6 2023 Copyright: © 2023 Mentler T
2023
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Version 1recommendationapprove
This study protocol describes how to conduct a scoping review of lay medication use in settings that are not directly healthcare settings. I thank the authors for their contribution and careful drafting. Likewise, the systemic human factors approach is to be appreciated.

The goal and necessity of the study are understandable, but individual justifications are perhaps a bit brief. It has long been common practice for patients to take medications (in part) at home. The arguments could certainly be worked out more clearly here.

The authors state, " Studies that have an element of professional or semi-professional service provision will be excluded." If, as is also stated, all phases of drug administration are considered, there should always be a professional medical part, at least in the case of prescription drugs. This should be clarified.

The ACM Digital Library would also need to be considered, especially regarding technology-based approaches to medication management. There are also quite a few papers from the human factors area.

Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes

Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Yes

Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

Reviewer Expertise:

human computer interaction, safety-critical systems, human factors & ergonomics

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

10.21956/hrbopenres.14953.r33582
Reviewer response for version 1
Fudge Nina 1Referee https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7161-4355

1 Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, England, UK
12 4 2023 Copyright: © 2023 Fudge N
2023
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Version 1recommendationapprove
Thank you for the opportunity to review this protocol paper of a scoping review on medication self-management work undertaken by patients and their informal carers. The authors’ proposal to frame the review using human factors and ergonomics approaches and systems thinking models provides a novel approach for exploring medication management in informal settings.

The first sentence in the abstract and introduction is correct in that healthcare is increasingly being delivered closer to the patient’s homes (e.g. monitoring blood pressure at home, remote care delivery, etc.) but I think this link to medicine management and taking medicines at home needs a better explanation. Haven’t patients always taken their medication in the home? Could the authors please expand on how medicine management has become more burdensome because of the push to deliver care closer to home? Or has medicines management work become more burdensome because of the increase in prescribing behaviour and polypharmacy (as the authors allude to)?

I understand that the focus is on medication management in the home/informal setting and the hazards this can create. But I was surprised not to see more mentioned about the source of medication which requires management - i.e. prescribing by health care professionals and the relationship between work as prescribed by professionals to patients and patients’ capacity to carry out this work (see the work of Carl May and colleagues 1 , and Ian Maidment and colleagues 2 ). How will the authors address the treatment burden which is surely not solely the responsibility of patients?

The review will adopt comprehensive patient, public and carer involvement, and from what I understood from the protocol, PPCI will occur from the study selection stage and onwards in the review process. But I wondered if patients and carers had been involved in the identification of the review questions and if so how their involvement shaped the resulting review.

Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes

Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Yes

Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Yes

Reviewer Expertise:

Qualitative analysis, patient and public involvement, multiple long-term conditions, polypharmacy

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
==== Refs
1 Zayas-Cabán T Flatley Brennan P : Human factors in home care.Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics in Health Care and Patient Safety. Edited by Carayon P. Mahwah, New Jersey: Erlbaum, 2007.
2 Aliotta S Andre J : Case management and home health care: an integrated model. Home Health Care Manag Pract. 1997;9 (2 ):1–12. 10.1177/108482239700900204
3 Cheraghi-Sohi S Jeffries M Stevenson F : The influence of personal communities on the self-management of medication taking: A wider exploration of medicine work. Chronic Illn. 2015;11 (2 ):77–92. 10.1177/1742395314537841 24920009
4 Yin K Jung J Coiera E : Patient Work and Their Contexts: Scoping Review. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22 (6 ):e16656. 10.2196/16656 32484449
5 Renny MH Thaker RH Dayan PS : Frequency of and Factors Associated With Prescription Medication Sharing Within Families. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2021;37 (12 ):599–605. 10.1097/PEC.0000000000001804 32773430
6 Markotic F Jurisic D Curkovic M : Sharing of prescription analgesics amongst patients in family practice: Frequency and associated factors. Eur J Pain. 2018;22 (4 ):716–727. 10.1002/ejp.1157 29194912
7 Brown MT Bussell JK : Medication adherence: WHO cares? Mayo Clin Proc. 2011;86 (4 ):304–314. 10.4065/mcp.2010.0575 21389250
8 VanDyke MM Steffen AM : Medication saving behaviors of older adults: Scale developed to assess family caregiver perspectives. Clin Gerontol. 2017;40 (4 ):258–267. 10.1080/07317115.2016.1276114 28452646
9 Kusturica MP Sabo A Tomic Z : Storage and disposal of unused medications: knowledge, behavior, and attitudes among Serbian people. Int J Clin Pharm. 2012;34 (4 ):604–610. 10.1007/s11096-012-9652-0 22644600
10 Silvestre J Reddy A De La Cruz M : Frequency of unsafe storage, use, and disposal practices of opioids among cancer patients presenting to the emergency department. Palliat Support Care. 2017;15 (6 ):638–43. 10.1017/S1478951516000158 27071690
11 Cassidy N Duggan E Williams DJP : The epidemiology and type of medication errors reported to the National Poisons Information Centre of Ireland. Clin Toxicol (Phila). 2011;49 (6 ):485–491. 10.3109/15563650.2011.587193 21824059
12 Aldila F Walpola R : Medicine self-administration errors in the older adult population: A systematic review. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2021;17 (11 ):1877–1886. 10.1016/j.sapharm.2021.03.008 33811011
13 Parand A Garfield S Vincent C : Carers' Medication Administration Errors in the Domiciliary Setting: A Systematic Review. PLoS One. 2016;11 (12 ):e0167204. 10.1371/journal.pone.0167204 27907072
14 Werner NE Ponnala S Doutcheva N : Human factors/ergonomics work system analysis of patient work: state of the science and future directions. Int J Qual Health Care. 2021;33 (Supplement_1 ):60–71. 10.1093/intqhc/mzaa099 33432984
15 Dul J Bruder R Buckle P : A strategy for human factors/ergonomics: developing the discipline and profession. Ergonomics. 2012;55 (4 ):377–395. 10.1080/00140139.2012.661087 22332611
16 International Ergonomics Association (IEA): The Discipline of Ergonomics.IEA;2000.
17 Carayon P Schoofs Hundt A Karsh BT : Work system design for patient safety: the SEIPS model. Qual Saf Health Care. 2006;15 Suppl 1 (Suppl I ):i50–i58. 10.1136/qshc.2005.015842 17142610
18 Doucette WR Vinel S Pennathur P : Initial development of the Systems Approach to Home Medication Management (SAHMM) model. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2017;13 (1 ):39–47. 10.1016/j.sapharm.2015.12.013 26853834
19 Moriarty F Hardy C Bennett K : Trends and interaction of polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate prescribing in primary care over 15 years in Ireland: a repeated cross-sectional study. BMJ Open. 2015;5 (9 ):e008656. 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008656 26384726
20 Kelly D Koay A Mineva G : A scoping review of non-professional medication practices and medication safety outcomes during public health emergencies. Public Health. 2022;214 :50–60. 10.1016/j.puhe.2022.10.026 36521272
21 Wicks P Richards T Denegri S : Patients' roles and rights in research. BMJ. 2018;362 :k3193. 10.1136/bmj.k3193 30045909
22 Pollock A Campbell P Struthers C : Development of the ACTIVE framework to describe stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2019;24 (4 ):245–255. 10.1177/1355819619841647 30997859
23 Darzi A : High Quality Care For All: NHS Next Stage Review.London: National Health Service;2009.
24 Ocloo J Garfield S Franklin BD : Exploring the theory, barriers and enablers for patient and public involvement across health, social care and patient safety: a systematic review of reviews. Health Res Policy Syst. 2021;19 (1 ):8. 10.1186/s12961-020-00644-3 33472647
25 Pollock D Peters MDJ Hanan K : Recommendations for the extraction, analysis, and presentation of results in scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth. 2022;20 (0 ):1–14. 10.11124/JBIES-22-00123 35039467
26 Tricco AC Lillie E Zarin W : PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169 (7 ):467–473. 10.7326/M18-0850 30178033
27 Moher D Shamseer L Clarke M : Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4 (1 ):1. 10.1186/2046-4053-4-1 25554246
28 Negoescu E Marcilly R Koay A : PRISMA-P checklist for ‘The Medication Self-Management Work System of Patients and Informal Carers from a Human Factors & Ergonomics Perspective: A Scoping Review Protocol’.[Dataset].2022. 10.5281/zenodo.7463641
29 Noyes J Booth A Lewin S : Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings-paper 6: how to assess relevance of the data. Implement Sc. 2018;13 (Suppl 1 ):4. 10.1186/s13012-017-0693-6 29384080
30 Hsieh HF Shannon SE : Three approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15 (9 ):1277–1288. 10.1177/1049732305276687 16204405