Assessment of literacy and numeracy skills related to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug labels

Psychometric properties and validation of the revised Chinese Medication Literacy Scale for Hypertensive Patients (C-MLSHP-R)

Background

Medication literacy is one of the key indicators that can affect the self-management of medications and medication safety. This study aimed to revise the Chinese Medication Literacy Scale for hypertensive patients (C-MLSHP) and test the reliability and validity of the revised scale.

Methods

We revised the C-MLSHP by several methods, i.e., focus group discussion, expert consultation, patient interview, and pilot study, based on the established evaluation index system of medication literacy for hypertensive patients. Then, a formal survey using the revised Chinese Medication Literacy Scale for hypertensive patients (C-MLSHP-R) was carried out on hypertensive patients from hospitals and community healthcare centers in Changsha city of China to test its reliability and validity. The reliability was evaluated with Cronbach's α coefficient, split-half reliability, and test–retest reliability. The validity was evaluated with content validity, construct validity, convergent validity, discriminant validity, and criterion-related validity.

Results

The C-MLSHP-R contained 18 items within four domains, i.e., the knowledge domain included four items, the attitude domain had three items, the skill domain involved seven items, and the practice domain included four items. A total of 339 hypertensive patients participated in the formal survey. The results showed that the Cronbach's α coefficient of C-MLSHP-R was 0.802, and for each domain ranged from 0.639 to 0.815. The split-half reliability coefficient of C-MLSHP-R was 0.709, and for each domain ranged from 0.648 to 0.792. The test–retest reliability coefficient of C-MLSHP-R was 0.851, and for each domain ranged from 0.655 to 0.857. The I-CVI of each item ranged from 0.833 to 1.000, the S-CVI/Ave of C-MLSHP-R was 0.981, the S-CVI/UA was 0.889, and for each domain ranged from 0.958 to 1.000. Confirmatory factor analysis results showed that the model fitted well. The convergent validity of C-MLSHP-R was acceptable, and the discriminant validity was good. The criterion coefficient between C-MLSHP-R and C-MLSHP was 0.797, and for each domain ranged from 0.609 to 0.755.

Conclusion

Compared with C-MLSHP, the C-MLSHP-R with 18 items was much shorter for measuring, and had decreased reliability within the acceptable range and better validity, which was more appropriate and time-saving to assess the medication literacy level for hypertensive patients scientifically and conveniently.

A Scoping Review of Non-Medical and Extra-Medical Use of Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs (NSAIDs)

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are among the most commonly used medications worldwide and have analgesic, antipyretic and anti-inflammatory properties. Although NSAIDs are recognised as generally safe and effective, non-medical and extra-medical use of these products can occur. Unlike the use of illegal and many prescription drugs, which are subject to extensive research attention, inappropriate use of NSAIDs has been less well investigated. This scoping review collates and describes what is known regarding non-medical and extra-medical use of NSAIDs. In total, 72 studies were included in this scoping review. Three themes emerged from the review: (1) indicative profile of people who engage in non-medical or extra-medical use of NSAIDs; (2) antecedents for non-medical or extra-medical use; and (3) adverse health effects of non-medical and extra-medical use of NSAIDs. The review concluded that there is a need for enhanced patient education, including among sports people; pharmacovigilance in terms of clinician recognition of aberrance; and prescriber and pharmacist awareness of the potential for extra-medical and non-medical use and the related health harms.

Using an Information Package to Reduce Patients' Risk of Renal Damage: Protocol for a Randomized Feasibility Trial

Background

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are a common cause of renal damage, especially when taken together with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-i) or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) plus a diuretic — a combination known as the “triple whammy.” New Zealand patients are at high risk of the “triple whammy” because they can easily purchase NSAIDs without a prescription and in nonpharmacy retail settings (eg, the supermarket), there is no legal requirement to include patient information sheets with medication, and direct-to-consumer drug advertising is permitted. A patient information package has been developed for those at greatest risk of the “triple whammy,” consisting of a printable PDF and an interactive online learning activity. This information package aims to inform patients about their elevated risk of harm from NSAIDS and discourage use of NSAIDs. A randomized control trial was planned to assess the effect of the information package.

Objective

This study aims to pilot the trial procedures for recruiting patients and providing patient information online and to assess the acceptability of the patient information package.

Methods

A two-armed randomized feasibility trial will be undertaken in Northland, New Zealand. We will recruit 50 patients who are at least 18 years old from those who have signed up to receive email alerts through their general practice. Patients eligible for this study have been prescribed an ACE-i or ARB plus a diuretic in the past 3 months. They will be randomly allocated to 2 study arms. The intervention arm will receive access to an information package plus usual care; the control arm will receive usual care alone. Online surveys will be used to assess NSAID knowledge and NSAID use at baseline and after 2 weeks for both arms. The intervention arm will also evaluate the information package in an additional survey based on Normalization Process Theory (NPT) concepts. We will report the number and proportion of participants who are eligible and consent to participate in the trial. Response and drop-out rates will be reported for each trial arm. The numbers of patients who interact with the education package will be reported together with the patient evaluation of it.

Results

Funding has been obtained from the Health Research Council of New Zealand (HRC 18-031). The University of Otago Human Research Ethics Committee (H21/016) has approved this trial. Consultation has been undertaken with The Ngai Tahu research consultation committee. The trial commenced on April 12, 2021.

Conclusions

This feasibility trial will test the study processes prior to commencing a randomized controlled trial and will determine the acceptability of the patient information package. We anticipate this work will provide useful information for other researchers attempting similar work.

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

PRR1-10.2196/29161

Ideal instruments used to measure health literacy related to medication use: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Prior studies showed the association between inadequate health literacy (HL) and poor medication-related skills, while none of the published studies have reviewed and compared the existing instruments used to measure medication-related HL. This systematic review comprehensively summarizes the existing instruments that assess medication-related HL.

OBJECTIVES

To identify appropriate HL instruments related to medication use as screening tools for enhancing patients' ability to use medications correctly.

METHODS

This review retrieved medication-related HL instruments that were published between 2000 and 2019 from three databases (i.e., PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE) and by hand-searching. The PRISMA procedure was followed as well as the SURGE guideline to assess the quality of studies. Psychometric properties, HL dimensions, and types of medication information gleaned from the items in three types of HL instruments (i.e., general, disease-specific, medication-specific) were compared to identify appropriate medication-related HL instruments.

RESULT

Forty-eight instruments were identified from 44 studies, whereas 70.8% instruments were either disease- or medication-specific HL instruments. Most instruments with different sample sizes showed certain an extent of reliability and validity. The distributions of HL dimensions and types of medication information among the relevant items were varied across different types of instruments. The five instruments (named as the 16SQ, AKQ-CQ, DHLKI, AKT, and ChMLM) were identified as the most appropriate instruments for three types of medication-related HL, respectively. These appropriate instruments consistently covered items related to HL dimensions of literacy and comprehension and medication-related information regarding dosing, treatment indication, and side effects/precautions.

CONCLUSION

Of 48 identified instruments mainly derived from disease- or medication-specific studies, the five most appropriate medication-related HL instruments were identified to support clinicians in facilitating patients' correct medication use. Further confirmation to explore the usefulness among these instruments are needed.

Instruments assessing medication literacy in adult recipients of care: A systematic review of measurement properties

OBJECTIVES

The assessment of medication literacy in patients is an important step in assisting clinicians to plan for education, prescription simplification, assistance and/or medication aids. There have been several attempts to develop a standardised, objective measure of medication literacy. The objectives of this systematic review were to critically appraise, compare and summarise the measurement properties of existing instruments that assess medication literacy in adult recipients of care.

DESIGN

A systematic review was performed.

SEARCH METHODS

Structured searches were conducted in Embase, MEDLINE PubMed, CINAHL, APA PsycINFO and Web of Science Core Collection in March 2020. Additional searches were performed in ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, DART Europe, and Google Scholar, followed by citation tracking of included studies.

REVIEW METHODS

Two researchers independently identified eligible studies. Two researchers then assessed the methodological quality of the studies and quality of measurement properties, using the Consensus-based Standards for selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines. A best-evidence synthesis for each instrument was performed.

RESULTS

From the 5035 citations, 17 studies were included that concerned 13 instruments using different administration methods (i.e., performancebased or self-report), medication type (i.e., prescribed or nonprescribed) and context of use (i.e., clinical or community settings). Very low- to moderate-quality evidence supported satisfactory content validity regarding relevance and comprehensibility, while comprehensiveness remained inconsistent. Other measurement properties were less frequently examined and were supported by moderate-quality evidence (i.e., structural validity) to low- or very low-quality evidence (i.e., internal consistency, reliability, construct validity). The bestvalidated instrument is the unidimensional 14-item Medication Literacy in Spanish and English assessment tool (MedLitRxSE), based on direct testing of participant performance regarding four hypothetical scenarios on medication use. Nine instruments have the potential to be recommended but require additional research, while for others, their psychometric soundness is too limited and they require content revisions.

CONCLUSION

This is the first systematic review to identify instruments for medication literacy. None of the identified instruments had all measurement properties properly assessed and none reported measurement invariance, measurement error and responsiveness of the instrument. Further research is necessary for a better theoretical understanding of medication literacy in order to assist health professionals in identifying patient needs for education, regimen simplification, assistance and/or medication aids. Such research will help conceptualise new instruments that not only cover relevant domains dedicated to specific populations (e.g., polymorbid and/or older individuals), but also exhibit satisfactory measurement properties.