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

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.

Effects of Hospital-Based Comprehensive Medication Reviews Including Postdischarge Follow-up on Older Patients' Use of Health Care: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Suboptimal use of medications is a leading cause of health care-related harm. Medication reviews improve medication use, but evidence of the possible benefit of inpatient medication review for hard clinical outcomes after discharge is scarce.

Objective

To study the effects of hospital-based comprehensive medication reviews (CMRs), including postdischarge follow-up of older patients' use of health care resources, compared with only hospital-based reviews and usual care.

Design, Setting, and Participants

The Medication Reviews Bridging Healthcare trial is a cluster randomized crossover trial that was conducted in 8 wards with multiprofessional teams at 4 hospitals in Sweden from February 6, 2017, to October 19, 2018, with 12 months of follow-up completed December 6, 2019. The study was prespecified in the trial protocol. Outcome assessors were blinded to treatment allocation. In total, 2644 patients aged 65 years or older who had been admitted to 1 of the study wards for at least 1 day were included. Data from the modified intention-to-treat population were analyzed from December 10, 2019, to September 9, 2020.

Interventions

Each ward participated in the trial for 6 consecutive 8-week periods. The wards were randomized to provide 1 of 3 treatments during each period: CMR, CMR plus postdischarge follow-up, and usual care without a clinical pharmacist.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome measure was the incidence of unplanned hospital visits (admissions plus emergency department visits) within 12 months. Secondary outcomes included medication-related admissions, visits with primary care clinicians, time to first unplanned hospital visit, mortality, and costs of hospital-based care.

Results

Of the 2644 participants, 7 withdrew after inclusion, leaving 2637 for analysis (1357 female [51.5%]; median age, 81 [interquartile range, 74-87] years; median number of medications, 9 [interquartile range, 5-13]). In the modified intention-to-treat analysis, 922 patients received CMR, 823 received CMR plus postdischarge follow-up, and 892 received usual care. The crude incidence rate of unplanned hospital visits was 1.77 per patient-year in the total study population. The primary outcome did not differ between the intervention groups and usual care (adjusted rate ratio, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.89-1.22] for CMR and 1.15 [95% CI, 0.98-1.34] for CMR plus postdischarge follow-up). However, CMR plus postdischarge follow-up was associated with an increased incidence of emergency department visits within 12 months (adjusted rate ratio, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.05-1.59) compared with usual care. There were no differences between treatment groups regarding other secondary outcomes.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this study of older hospitalized patients, CMR plus postdischarge follow-up did not decrease the incidence of unplanned hospital visits. The findings do not support the performance of hospital-based CMRs as conducted in this trial. Alternative forms of medication reviews that aim to improve older patients' health outcomes should be considered and subjected to randomized clinical trials.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02986425.

Developing interventions to improve health: a systematic mapping review of international practice between 2015 and 2016

Background

Researchers publish the processes they use to develop interventions to improve health. Reflecting on this endeavour may help future developers to improve their practice.

Methods

Our aim was to collate, describe, and analyse the actions developers take when developing complex interventions to improve health. We carried out a systematic mapping review of empirical research studies that report the development of complex interventions to improve health. A search was undertaken of five databases over 2015–2016 using the term ‘intervention dev*’. Eighty-seven journal articles reporting the process of intervention development were identified. A purposive subset of 30 articles, using a range of published approaches to developing interventions, was selected for in-depth analysis using principles of realist synthesis to identify the actions of intervention development and rationales underpinning those actions.

Results

The 87 articles were from the USA (39/87), the UK (32/87), continental Europe (6/87), and the rest of the world (10/87). These mainly took a pragmatic self-selected approach (n = 43); a theory- and evidence-based approach, e.g. Intervention Mapping, Behaviour Change Wheel (n = 22); or a partnership approach, e.g. community-based participatory research, co-design (n = 10). Ten actions of intervention development were identified from the subset of 30 articles, including identifying a need for an intervention, selecting the intervention development approach to follow, considering the needs of the target population, reviewing published evidence, involving stakeholders, drawing or generating theory, and designing and refining the intervention. Rationales for these actions were that they would produce more engaging, acceptable, feasible, and effective interventions.

Conclusions

Developers take a variety of approaches to the international endeavour of complex intervention development. We have identified and described a set of actions taken within this endeavour regardless of whether developers follow a published approach or not. Future developers can use these actions and the rationales that underpin them to help them make decisions about the process of intervention development.

Trial registration

PROSPERO, CRD42017080545.

Engaging Biomedical Engineering in Health Disparities Challenges

Health Disparities (HD) are community-based, biomedical challenges in need of innovative contributions from Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) fields. Surprisingly, STEM professionals demonstrate a persistent lack of HD awareness and/or engagement in both research and educational activities. This project introduced Health Disparities (HD) as technical challenges to incoming undergraduates in order to elevate engineering awareness of HD. The objective was to advance STEM-based, HD literacy and outreach to young cohorts of engineers. Engineering students were introduced to HD challenges in technical and societal contexts as part of Engineering 101 courses. Findings demonstrate that student comprehension of HD challenges increased via joint study of rising health care costs, engineering ethics and growth of biomedical-related engineering areas.

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

BACKGROUND

Preventive treatment goals for blood pressure and cholesterol levels continue to be unmet for many coronary patients. The effect of drug treatment depends on both its appropriateness and the patients' adherence to the treatment regimen. There is a need for adherence interventions that have a measurable effect on clinical outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to evaluate the effects on treatment goals of an intervention designed to improve patient adherence and treatment quality in secondary prevention of coronary heart disease. A protocol for the prespecified process evaluation of the trial is published separately.

METHODS

The Motivational Interviewing and Medication Review in Coronary heart disease (MIMeRiC) trial is a prospective, randomized, outcomes-blinded trial designed to compare individualized follow-up by a clinical pharmacist using motivational interviewing (MI) and medication review with standard follow-up. Patients were randomized to 2 groups after stratification according to their beliefs about medicines. After standard follow-up at the cardiology clinic, patients in the intervention group are seen individually by a clinical pharmacist 2 to 5 times as required over 7 months, at the clinic. The pharmacist reviews each patient's medication and uses MI to manage any problems with prescribing and adherence. The primary study outcome is the proportion of patients who have reached the treatment goal for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol by 12 months after discharge. Secondary outcomes are the effects on patient adherence, systolic blood pressure, disease-specific quality of life, and health care use.

RESULTS

The protocol for this study was approved by the Regional Ethics Committee, Linköping, in 2013. Enrollment started in October 2013 and ended in December 2016 when 417 patients had been included. Follow-up data collection will conclude in March 2018. Publication of the primary and secondary outcome results from the MIMeRiC trial is anticipated in 2019.

CONCLUSIONS

The MIMeRiC trial will assess the effectiveness of an intervention involving medication reviews and individualized support. The results will inform the continued development of support for this large group of patients who use preventive medicines for lifelong treatment. The design of this adherence intervention is based on a theoretical framework and is the first trial of an intervention that uses beliefs about medicines to individualize the intervention protocol.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02102503; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02102503 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6x7iUDohy).