Motivational Interviewing and Medication Review in Coronary Heart Disease (MIMeRiC): Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial Investigating Effects on Clinical Outcomes, Adherence, and Quality of Life

Effect of a mutual goal-based continuous care program on self-management behaviour and health outcomes in patients after percutaneous coronary intervention: A randomized controlled trial

AIMS

To evaluate the effects of mutual goal-based continuous care program on the outcomes of patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

DESIGN

A single-blinded randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

87 patients with CHD after PCI in Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China, were randomly divided into study (n = 42) and control (n = 45) groups. The control group received 12-week cardiac rehabilitation and routine care. The study group received routine care and cardiac rehabilitation and the 12-week intervention program developed according to the goal attainment theory, including the mutual goal-based face-to-face guidance, and every-2-week telephone follow-ups. The self-management behaviour, quality of life, unscheduled readmission rate, and satisfaction of patients were examined.

RESULTS

For the patients subjected to the developed continuous nursing program based on mutual goals, achievement rates of all dimension mutual goals were at high levels (from 80.21% to 98.41%), except for the weight control (60.94%). Moreover, according to the comparable base data, compared with the control group, the self-management behaviour (study group 93.43 vs. control group 76.00), quality of life (QoL), and patients' satisfaction (study group 4.64 vs. control group 4.11) were higher, while the unscheduled readmission rate (study group 4.76% vs. control group 22.22%) was lower, in the study group, with statistically significant differences.

Effects of a pharmaceutical care intervention on clinical outcomes and patient adherence in coronary heart disease: the MIMeRiC randomized controlled trial

Background

In the treatment of coronary heart disease, secondary prevention goals are still often unmet and poor adherence to prescribed drugs has been suggested as one of the reasons. We aimed to investigate whether pharmaceutical care by a pharmacist at the cardiology clinic trained in motivational interviewing improves clinical outcomes and patient adherence.

Methods

This was a prospective, randomized, controlled, outcomes-blinded trial designed to compare pharmaceutical care follow-up with standard care. After standard follow-up at the cardiology clinic, patients in the intervention group were seen by a clinical pharmacist two to five times as required over seven months. Pharmacists were trained to use motivational interviewing in the consultations and they tailored their support to each patient’s clinical needs and beliefs about medicines. The primary study end-point was the proportion of patients who reached the treatment goal for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol by 12 months after discharge. The key secondary outcome was patient adherence to lipid-lowering therapy at 15 months after discharge, and other secondary outcomes were the effects on patient adherence to other preventive drugs, systolic blood pressure, disease-specific quality of life, and healthcare use.

Results

316 patients were included. The proportion of patients who reached the target for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol were 37.0% in the intervention group and 44.2% in the control group (P = .263). More intervention than control patients were adherent to cholesterol-lowering drugs (88 vs 77%; P = .033) and aspirin (97 vs 91%; P = .036) but not to beta-blocking agents or renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system inhibitors.

Conclusions

Our intervention had no positive effects on risk factors for CHD, but it increased patient adherence. Further investigation of the intervention process is needed to explore the difference in results between patient adherence and medication effects. Longer follow-up of healthcare use and mortality will determine if the increased adherence per se eventually will have a meaningful effect on patient health.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02102503, 03/04/2014 retrospectively registered.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12872-021-02178-0.

Interventions for improving medication-taking ability and adherence in older adults prescribed multiple medications

BACKGROUND

Older people taking multiple medications represent a large and growing proportion of the population. Managing multiple medications can be challenging, and this is especially the case for older people, who have higher rates of comorbidity and physical and cognitive impairment than younger adults. Good medication-taking ability and medication adherence are necessary to ensure safe and effective use of medications.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of interventions designed to improve medication-taking ability and/or medication adherence in older community-dwelling adults prescribed multiple long-term medications.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PsycINFO, CINAHL Plus, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts from inception until June 2019. We also searched grey literature, online trial registries, and reference lists of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and cluster-RCTs. Eligible studies tested interventions aimed at improving medication-taking ability and/or medication adherence among people aged ≥ 65 years (or of mean/median age > 65 years), living in the community or being discharged from hospital back into the community, and taking four or more regular prescription medications (or with group mean/median of more than four medications). Interventions targeting carers of older people who met these criteria were also included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently reviewed abstracts and full texts of eligible studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias of included studies. We conducted meta-analyses when possible and used a random-effects model to yield summary estimates of effect, risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) for continuous outcomes, along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Narrative synthesis was performed when meta-analysis was not possible. We assessed overall certainty of evidence for each outcome using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Primary outcomes were medication-taking ability and medication adherence. Secondary outcomes included health-related quality of life (HRQoL), emergency department (ED)/hospital admissions, and mortality.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 50 studies (14,269 participants) comprising 40 RCTs, six cluster-RCTs, and four quasi-RCTs. All included studies evaluated interventions versus usual care; six studies also reported a comparison between two interventions as part of a three-arm RCT design. Interventions were grouped on the basis of their educational and/or behavioural components: 14 involved educational components only, 7 used behavioural strategies only, and 29 provided mixed educational and behavioural interventions. Overall, our confidence in results regarding the effectiveness of interventions was low to very low due to a high degree of heterogeneity of included studies and high or unclear risk of bias across multiple domains in most studies. Five studies evaluated interventions for improving medication-taking ability, and 48 evaluated interventions for improving medication adherence (three studies evaluated both outcomes). No studies involved educational or behavioural interventions alone for improving medication-taking ability. Low-quality evidence from five studies, each using a different measure of medication-taking ability, meant that we were unable to determine the effects of mixed interventions on medication-taking ability. Low-quality evidence suggests that behavioural only interventions (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.38; 4 studies) and mixed interventions (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.37; 12 studies) may increase the proportions of people who are adherent compared with usual care. We could not include in the meta-analysis results from two studies involving mixed interventions: one had a positive effect on adherence, and the other had little or no effect. Very low-quality evidence means that we are uncertain of the effects of educational only interventions (5 studies) on the proportions of people who are adherent. Low-quality evidence suggests that educational only interventions (SMD 0.16, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.43; 5 studies) and mixed interventions (SMD 0.47, 95% CI -0.08 to 1.02; 7 studies) may have little or no impact on medication adherence assessed through continuous measures of adherence. We excluded 10 studies (4 educational only and 6 mixed interventions) from the meta-analysis including four studies with unclear or no available results. Very low-quality evidence means that we are uncertain of the effects of behavioural only interventions (3 studies) on medication adherence when assessed through continuous outcomes. Low-quality evidence suggests that mixed interventions may reduce the number of ED/hospital admissions (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.90; 11 studies) compared with usual care, although results from six further studies that we were unable to include in meta-analyses indicate that the intervention may have a smaller, or even no, effect on these outcomes. Similarly, low-quality evidence suggests that mixed interventions may lead to little or no change in HRQoL (7 studies), and very low-quality evidence means that we are uncertain of the effects on mortality (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.30; 7 studies). Moderate-quality evidence shows that educational interventions alone probably have little or no effect on HRQoL (6 studies) or on ED/hospital admissions (4 studies) when compared with usual care. Very low-quality evidence means that we are uncertain of the effects of behavioural interventions on HRQoL (1 study) or on ED/hospital admissions (2 studies). We identified no studies evaluating effects of educational or behavioural interventions alone on mortality. Six studies reported a comparison between two interventions; however due to the limited number of studies assessing the same types of interventions and comparisons, we are unable to draw firm conclusions for any outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Behavioural only or mixed educational and behavioural interventions may improve the proportion of people who satisfactorily adhere to their prescribed medications, but we are uncertain of the effects of educational only interventions. No type of intervention was found to improve adherence when it was measured as a continuous variable, with educational only and mixed interventions having little or no impact and evidence of insufficient quality to determine the effects of behavioural only interventions. We were unable to determine the impact of interventions on medication-taking ability. The quality of evidence for these findings is low due to heterogeneity and methodological limitations of studies included in the review. Further well-designed RCTs are needed to investigate the effects of interventions for improving medication-taking ability and medication adherence in older adults prescribed multiple medications.

Trivial or Troublesome: Experience with Coronary Heart Disease Medication from the Patient's Perspective

BACKGROUND

Living with coronary heart disease (CHD) usually means being prescribed several medications to help prevent new cardiac events. Using medicines for long-term conditions impacts on day-to-day life, and coping with medicines can be burdensome and can affect the quality of life. To enable better support of these patients, we need to understand their collective medicine-related experience.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to describe patients' medicine-related experience 1 year after the diagnosis of CHD.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A qualitative, descriptive study using semi-structured interviews was conducted in 19 patients in their homes or at Linnaeus University, Sweden. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Qualitative content analysis with an inductive approach was used.

RESULTS

Patients' experiences with using their medicines after diagnosis of CHD differed considerably. Some patients found handling the medicines and administering their treatment very easy, natural and straightforward, while others found that it was distressing or troublesome, and influenced their lives extensively. There was a varied sense of personal responsibility about the treatment and use of medicines. The patients' experiences were classified into one of seven categories: a sense of security, unproblematic, learning to live with it, taking responsibility for it, somewhat uncertain, troublesome, or distressing. Participants in the study who expressed an unproblematic view of medicine taking also often revealed that they had dilemmas or uncertainties.

CONCLUSION

Patients' medicine-related experiences after CHD vary greatly. The findings of this study highlight a need for more individualized support for patients using medicines for secondary prevention. The patients often needed better dialogue with healthcare providers to optimally manage their medicines. Medicine-related support for these patients should encompass various aspects of medicine-taking.

Motivational Interviewing and Medication Review in Coronary Heart Disease (MIMeRiC): Intervention Development and Protocol for the Process Evaluation

BACKGROUND

Trials of complex interventions are often criticized for being difficult to interpret because the effects of apparently similar interventions vary across studies dependent on context, targeted groups, and the delivery of the intervention. The Motivational Interviewing and Medication Review in Coronary heart disease (MIMeRiC) trial is a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of an intervention aimed at improving pharmacological secondary prevention. Guidelines for the development and evaluation of complex interventions have recently highlighted the need for better reporting of the development of interventions, including descriptions of how the intervention is assumed to work, how this theory informed the process evaluation, and how the process evaluation relates to the outcome evaluation.

OBJECTIVE

This paper aims to describe how the intervention was designed and developed. The aim of the process evaluation is to better understand how and why the intervention in the MIMeRiC trial was effective or not effective.

METHODS

The research questions for evaluating the process are based on the conceptual model of change processes assumed in the intervention and will be analyzed by qualitative and quantitative methods. Quantitative data are used to evaluate the medication review in terms of drug-related problems, to describe how patients' beliefs about medicines are affected by the intervention, and to evaluate the quality of motivational interviewing. Qualitative data will be used to analyze whether patients experienced the intervention as intended, how cardiologists experienced the collaboration and intervention, and how the intervention affected patients' overall experience of care after coronary heart disease.

RESULTS

The development and piloting of the intervention are described in relation to the theoretical framework. Data for the process evaluation will be collected until March 2018. Some process evaluation questions will be analyzed before, and others will be analyzed after the outcomes of the MIMeRiC RCT are known.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper describes the framework for the design of the intervention tested in the MIMeRiC trial, development of the intervention from the pilot stage to the complete trial intervention, and the framework and methods for the process evaluation. Providing the protocol of the process evaluation allows prespecification of the processes that will be evaluated, because we hypothesize that they will determine the outcomes of the MIMeRiC trial. This protocol also constitutes a contribution to the new field of process evaluations as made explicit in health services research and clinical trials of complex interventions.