3869 Framework-guided domain mapping of adverse drug events in older adults: a scoping review of intersectional risks

Abstract Introduction Adverse drug events (ADEs) in older adults contribute to preventable harm, hospitalisation, and health inequalities. While age-related physiological changes affecting drug safety are recognised, less attention is paid to how sociodemographic and structural factors such as ethnicity and deprivation jointly shape vulnerability to ADEs. This limits the ability to design equitable medication safety strategies. This review examines how intersectional risks are currently conceptualised and analysed in ADE research, to inform more inclusive approaches to medication safety. Method We conducted a scoping review using JBI guidance and reported using PRISMA-ScR. Six databases were searched for peer-reviewed studies (2001–2024) on community-dwelling adults aged ≥65 years, examining ADEs and analysing at least two sociodemographic or health-related variables. A composite framework was developed using the National Institute on Ageing Health Disparities Framework, National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities Framework, and Dahlgren & Whitehead model. This mapped five domains of influence: biological, behavioural, sociocultural, environmental, and healthcare system. Results From 7900 studies, 47 met the inclusion criteria. All considered biological factors, but few examined behavioural (17.0%), sociocultural (19.1%), environmental (31.9%), or healthcare system (25.5%) domains. Only eleven tested interaction effects or conducted subgroup analyses. None employed advanced intersectionality-aligned approaches such as Multilevel Analysis of Individual Heterogeneity and Discriminatory Accuracy (MAIHDA) or latent class analysis. Sociodemographic factors were often simplified (e.g. binary ethnicity) and primarily treated as confounders rather than explanatory variables. Methodological quality was moderate to high, but reporting on equity-relevant variables was inconsistent. Conclusions Current ADE research inadequately captures the complexity of intersectional risks in older adults. By identifying this critical gap and offering a clear framework for equity-informed analyses, these findings can help promote a shift towards more personalised, inclusive, and system-aware medication safety. This could improve outcomes particularly for older adults experiencing multiple, intersecting disadvantages.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Age and Ageing
Published
2026-02-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afaf368.120
Primary Topic
Pharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

3869 Framework-guided domain mapping of adverse drug events in older adults: a scoping review of intersectional risks

Fatima R. N. Sabir, Muhammad Faisal, D P Alldred, J Murray et al.
Age and Ageing
Pharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
article

3869 Framework-guided domain mapping of adverse drug events in older adults: a scoping review of intersectional risks

Fatima R. N. Sabir, Muhammad Faisal, D P Alldred, J Murray, A Z Hussain, O Todd
article en

Abstract

Abstract Introduction Adverse drug events (ADEs) in older adults contribute to preventable harm, hospitalisation, and health inequalities. While age-related physiological changes affecting drug safety are recognised, less attention is paid to how sociodemographic and structural factors such as ethnicity and deprivation jointly shape vulnerability to ADEs. This limits the ability to design equitable medication safety strategies. This review examines how intersectional risks are currently conceptualised and analysed in ADE research, to inform more inclusive approaches to medication safety. Method We conducted a scoping review using JBI guidance and reported using PRISMA-ScR. Six databases were searched for peer-reviewed studies (2001–2024) on community-dwelling adults aged ≥65 years, examining ADEs and analysing at least two sociodemographic or health-related variables. A composite framework was developed using the National Institute on Ageing Health Disparities Framework, National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities Framework, and Dahlgren & Whitehead model. This mapped five domains of influence: biological, behavioural, sociocultural, environmental, and healthcare system. Results From 7900 studies, 47 met the inclusion criteria. All considered biological factors, but few examined behavioural (17.0%), sociocultural (19.1%), environmental (31.9%), or healthcare system (25.5%) domains. Only eleven tested interaction effects or conducted subgroup analyses. None employed advanced intersectionality-aligned approaches such as Multilevel Analysis of Individual Heterogeneity and Discriminatory Accuracy (MAIHDA) or latent class analysis. Sociodemographic factors were often simplified (e.g. binary ethnicity) and primarily treated as confounders rather than explanatory variables. Methodological quality was moderate to high, but reporting on equity-relevant variables was inconsistent. Conclusions Current ADE research inadequately captures the complexity of intersectional risks in older adults. By identifying this critical gap and offering a clear framework for equity-informed analyses, these findings can help promote a shift towards more personalised, inclusive, and system-aware medication safety. This could improve outcomes particularly for older adults experiencing multiple, intersecting disadvantages.

Age and AgeingVol. 55(Supplement_1)
University of Leeds (GB), University of Bradford (GB), Leeds Community Healthcare NHS Trust (GB), Health Innovations (United States) (US), Pro Persona (NL), Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (GB), National Patient Safety Foundation (US)
Reduced inequalities
Openalex Percentile: Top 66%
Pharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.