Mental health disorders such as depression and insomnia are prevalent in the community; the use of antidepressants and benzodiazepines is therefore common. However if these medications are not prescribed and used appropriately issues relating to safety and/or efficacy can occur. There is also some concern about the misuse of benzodiazepines by the injecting drug user (IDU) community. The overall aim of this PhD was to perform international utilization comparison studies and analyze national prescribing data to understand and describe factors influencing the use of prescription medicines, in particular antidepressants and benzodiazepines, and to develop some ideas and initiatives to improve future use. Comparisons in the prescribing of benzodiazepines and antidepressants between Nova Scotia, Canada and Australia were undertaken. Dispensing data for all publicly subsidized benzodiazepines and related compounds and antidepressant classes of medications and utilization was compared from 2000-2003, using the World Health Organisation ATC/ DDD system. Australian dispensing data were also used to examine changes in the utilization of antidepressants and benzodiazepines between different age groups within Australia from 2003-2006. Dispensing data and numerical data derived from reports from Australia’s Illicit Drug Reporting System (IDRS) were used to estimate benzodiazepine use by those who inject heroin, in areas with high proportion of persons who inject heroin in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. To determine a strategy aimed at improving the use of benzodiazepines, the literature was searched and the latest interventions, solely focusing on increasing appropriate prescribing and reducing long term use of benzodiazepines worldwide were retrieved and analyzed. The comparison studies showed the use of benzodiazepines increased at a steady but comparable rate in both Australia and Nova Scotia, although overall use was much higher in Nova Scotia than Australia (123 and 48 DDD/1000 beneficiaries/day, respectively). However, the use of antidepressants in Nova Scotia increased at a higher rate than Australia. The variations between the two jurisdictions may be due to the more limited range of benzodiazepines available in Australia, or perhaps different initiatives to control. The differences may also be due to increased exposure to marketing, promotion, education or different prescribing practices in Nova Scotia compared to Australia. From 2003 to 2006, the use of antidepressants increased with age, with those over 65 years having the greatest use (86.9 and 97.7DDD/1000 population/day, respectively). Differences were also seen in the antidepressant most utilized, with the elderly using more tricyclic antidepressants than those who were younger. The utilization of benzodiazepines decreased from 2003-2006 in the same population (66.6 and 61 DDD/1000 concession beneficiaries/day, respectively). However, those over 85 had the highest use of benzodiazepines and used more long acting benzodiazepines than those aged 35-44. This demonstrates that the elderly still account for most use per capita of benzodiazepines. Some of this use may be inappropriate (e.g. use of long-acting benzodiazepines) and hence may provide a useful target for future educational intervention. The elderly also account for the largest per capita use of antidepressants. In areas with a high proportion of heroin IDU, the utilization of benzodiazepines by the estimated IDU population decreased (4064048DDDs in 2000 to 2613100 DDDs in 2006) however the overall use of benzodiazepines in Australia continued to increase from 2000-2006. This demonstrates that the increase in benzodiazepine utilization during this period was not primarily driven by use among IDU. The review identified three main target audiences at which interventions for improving the use of benzodiazepines were aimed at. These were consumers, General Practitioners or long term care facilities. Education, audit and feedback and alerts were the 3 major intervention approaches taken in the studies. The review concluded that studies which used a multi-factorial approach had the largest and most sustained reductions in benzodiazepines use. It appears that support groups for patients, non-voluntary recruitment of GPs, and oral delivery of alerts or feedback may all improve the outcomes of interventions. Using the review findings, an intervention targeting consumers and health professionals was conducted in a rural and urban area of Australia, using informative emails, bookmarks and website over a 6 month period. The intervention showed a significant decrease in the long term use of benzodiazepines within nursing homes located in the intervention geographical areas compared to the control areas. In conclusion the utilization studies revealed the current trends in utilization of antidepressants and benzodiazepines for Australia and led to the development of an intervention, based on factors that were found to influence prescribing of benzodiazepines. The intervention aimed at various target audiences did produce a small improvement in the prescribing of benzodiazepines.

Improving the quality use of medicines (QUM) among seniors, particularly those using multiple medicines, is a national priority. The National Prescribing Service??s Seniors QUM Program was developed in collaboration with consumers to address seniors?? medicines information needs. Seniors are trained as peer educators to convey QUM messages to other seniors in a single group session. However, there is a dearth of research assessing peer education for seniors about medicines, and little understanding of what peer educators do in practice. This research investigated how peer educators empower seniors toward the quality use of their medicines. A participatory action research inquiry was undertaken nationally with organisational leaders and locally with peer educators. The design was a nested case study with multiple sites, where the Seniors Program was the overarching case containing eight disparate local sites. The participatory inquiry engaged peer educators from each local site. Qualitative data were collected through participant observation and interviews. Data were analysed using grounded theory methods and findings were triangulated with other data sources. Peer educators demonstrated five main functions in the program ?? one primary function within QUM sessions and four support functions outside of sessions. The primary function of facilitating peer learning comprised 10 elements. A model depicts these elements in the context of varying session conditions and consequences. Educators?? lived experience as seniors and lay persons was an overarching contributor to peer learning, used strategically through storytelling to assist other elements. Sharing QUM outside of sessions occurred frequently, but requires development to reach isolated seniors. Peer educators exceeded expectations in getting QUM messages to seniors, applying unique skills to the information exchange within sessions. Their status as lay persons tackling the complex topic of QUM reflected an understanding of the disempowerment seniors may feel when seeking information about medicines. Peer educators?? ability to model an active partner role by applying their lived experience through storytelling in an interactive, mutually sharing session challenged seniors to rethink their medicines management and interactions with health professionals. As the population ages and medicines use increases, understanding and using seniors effectively as educators has great potential.

Improving the quality use of medicines (QUM) among seniors, particularly those using multiple medicines, is a national priority. The National Prescribing Service??s Seniors QUM Program was developed in collaboration with consumers to address seniors?? medicines information needs. Seniors are trained as peer educators to convey QUM messages to other seniors in a single group session. However, there is a dearth of research assessing peer education for seniors about medicines, and little understanding of what peer educators do in practice. This research investigated how peer educators empower seniors toward the quality use of their medicines. A participatory action research inquiry was undertaken nationally with organisational leaders and locally with peer educators. The design was a nested case study with multiple sites, where the Seniors Program was the overarching case containing eight disparate local sites. The participatory inquiry engaged peer educators from each local site. Qualitative data were collected through participant observation and interviews. Data were analysed using grounded theory methods and findings were triangulated with other data sources. Peer educators demonstrated five main functions in the program ?? one primary function within QUM sessions and four support functions outside of sessions. The primary function of facilitating peer learning comprised 10 elements. A model depicts these elements in the context of varying session conditions and consequences. Educators?? lived experience as seniors and lay persons was an overarching contributor to peer learning, used strategically through storytelling to assist other elements. Sharing QUM outside of sessions occurred frequently, but requires development to reach isolated seniors. Peer educators exceeded expectations in getting QUM messages to seniors, applying unique skills to the information exchange within sessions. Their status as lay persons tackling the complex topic of QUM reflected an understanding of the disempowerment seniors may feel when seeking information about medicines. Peer educators?? ability to model an active partner role by applying their lived experience through storytelling in an interactive, mutually sharing session challenged seniors to rethink their medicines management and interactions with health professionals. As the population ages and medicines use increases, understanding and using seniors effectively as educators has great potential.

Australia�s policy on Quality Use of Medicines (QUM) aims to achieve appropriate use of medicines and improved health outcomes. Drug and Therapeutics Committees (DTCs) are educators, policy makers as well as financial gatekeepers in matters relating to medicine use. Increasingly, DTCs are also involved in risk management and clinical governance. As such, DTCs could be considered to be QUM advocates in the institutions in which they function. In a health care arena where there are escalating demands on high standards of clinical practice, quality assessment and improvement is essential in ensuring safe and effective patient care. Given the role DTCs play in safeguarding the interests of the stakeholders of the health care system, research into ways in which DTC performance could be enhanced is required. Although indicators specific to DTCs exist, the literature does not seem to provide straightforward answers to the question of what is currently being done in terms of quality assessment and quality improvement of DTCs. In the absence of such data, an opportunity for research is clearly identified. The first aim of this research project was to gain insight into the current activities undertaken by, and challenges facing Australian DTCs. Following this, the second aim was to explore ways in which DTC performance could be augmented. In addressing the first aim of this project, a national survey of Australian DTCs was conducted. These findings reinforce the evidence in the literature about the roles, structure and stakeholder expectations of DTCs. Our research also documents DTCs� quality improvement initiatives and barriers to DTC activities. It appears that there is little support available to Australian DTCs. Further, a case study was undertaken in order to gain an understanding of the depth and detail of DTC operations. An audit of a DTC in an Australian hospital was conducted. This study revealed that DTC decisions are being implemented in an ad hoc manner. In fact, there were no strategies (or action) planned to implement the majority of their decisions. This could have an impact on DTC performance. In view of this finding, qualitative methods were used to explore stakeholder opinions regarding the implementation of DTC decisions and policies. Stakeholders believed that strategies used to implement DTC policies should be targeted (to the audience as well as the type of decision/policy being implemented), timely, and delivered at the point of care. Face-to-face strategies were perceived to be more effective than printed materials, particularly when an influence on clinical practice was desired. Stakeholders also felt that the lack of resources was a significant barrier to DTC performance augmentation. This probably contributed to a lack of follow-up (or review) of implemented policies. According to stakeholders, other barriers to policy implementation include a lack of ownership of policies, low DTC profile, and an over-reliance on pharmacy to implement DTC decisions. Stakeholders felt one of the ways in which DTC performance could be improved was to prioritise DTC decisions for implementation. In pursuit of a method to prioritise DTC decisions, a survey was conducted. Stakeholders identified patient safety, cost, and the practice of evidence-based medicine as domains of important DTC decisions. The results also suggest that stakeholders recognise the need for the prioritisation of DTC decisions for implementation. Stakeholders implied that higher priority would be assigned to DTC decisions considered to be important. In a follow-up survey, stakeholders (including doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and DTC members) seemed to have agreement of the primary domains of DTC decisions. Higher levels of importance and higher priority were assigned to decisions involving the primary domains of patient safety and cost. However, level of importance and priority assignment were not consistently correlated. The work presented in this thesis suggests that there are ways to improve DTC performance. Although conducted primarily on hospital-based DTCs, it is anticipated that the lessons learnt could be applied to state-based, or even, Area Health-based DTCs. In conclusion, this research found that there was a range of views regarding �importance� and prioritisation for implementation. Social, organisational, as well as environmental factors may contribute to this. Future research should examine other possible factors contributing to the importance and priority of DTC decisions, so that DTC policy could be appropriately implemented into practice.

Australia�s policy on Quality Use of Medicines (QUM) aims to achieve appropriate use of medicines and improved health outcomes. Drug and Therapeutics Committees (DTCs) are educators, policy makers as well as financial gatekeepers in matters relating to medicine use. Increasingly, DTCs are also involved in risk management and clinical governance. As such, DTCs could be considered to be QUM advocates in the institutions in which they function. In a health care arena where there are escalating demands on high standards of clinical practice, quality assessment and improvement is essential in ensuring safe and effective patient care. Given the role DTCs play in safeguarding the interests of the stakeholders of the health care system, research into ways in which DTC performance could be enhanced is required. Although indicators specific to DTCs exist, the literature does not seem to provide straightforward answers to the question of what is currently being done in terms of quality assessment and quality improvement of DTCs. In the absence of such data, an opportunity for research is clearly identified. The first aim of this research project was to gain insight into the current activities undertaken by, and challenges facing Australian DTCs. Following this, the second aim was to explore ways in which DTC performance could be augmented. In addressing the first aim of this project, a national survey of Australian DTCs was conducted. These findings reinforce the evidence in the literature about the roles, structure and stakeholder expectations of DTCs. Our research also documents DTCs� quality improvement initiatives and barriers to DTC activities. It appears that there is little support available to Australian DTCs. Further, a case study was undertaken in order to gain an understanding of the depth and detail of DTC operations. An audit of a DTC in an Australian hospital was conducted. This study revealed that DTC decisions are being implemented in an ad hoc manner. In fact, there were no strategies (or action) planned to implement the majority of their decisions. This could have an impact on DTC performance. In view of this finding, qualitative methods were used to explore stakeholder opinions regarding the implementation of DTC decisions and policies. Stakeholders believed that strategies used to implement DTC policies should be targeted (to the audience as well as the type of decision/policy being implemented), timely, and delivered at the point of care. Face-to-face strategies were perceived to be more effective than printed materials, particularly when an influence on clinical practice was desired. Stakeholders also felt that the lack of resources was a significant barrier to DTC performance augmentation. This probably contributed to a lack of follow-up (or review) of implemented policies. According to stakeholders, other barriers to policy implementation include a lack of ownership of policies, low DTC profile, and an over-reliance on pharmacy to implement DTC decisions. Stakeholders felt one of the ways in which DTC performance could be improved was to prioritise DTC decisions for implementation. In pursuit of a method to prioritise DTC decisions, a survey was conducted. Stakeholders identified patient safety, cost, and the practice of evidence-based medicine as domains of important DTC decisions. The results also suggest that stakeholders recognise the need for the prioritisation of DTC decisions for implementation. Stakeholders implied that higher priority would be assigned to DTC decisions considered to be important. In a follow-up survey, stakeholders (including doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and DTC members) seemed to have agreement of the primary domains of DTC decisions. Higher levels of importance and higher priority were assigned to decisions involving the primary domains of patient safety and cost. However, level of importance and priority assignment were not consistently correlated. The work presented in this thesis suggests that there are ways to improve DTC performance. Although conducted primarily on hospital-based DTCs, it is anticipated that the lessons learnt could be applied to state-based, or even, Area Health-based DTCs. In conclusion, this research found that there was a range of views regarding �importance� and prioritisation for implementation. Social, organisational, as well as environmental factors may contribute to this. Future research should examine other possible factors contributing to the importance and priority of DTC decisions, so that DTC policy could be appropriately implemented into practice.