People-centered care and patients' beliefs about medicines and adherence: A cross-sectional study

Introduction

People-centered care (PCC) strategies are believed to improve overall health outcomes. Medicines use is essential for the treatment of many patients with chronic conditions. Non-adherence rates are high and result in poor health outcomes, and increased healthcare utilization and costs. This study aimed to explore the relationship between PCC and adherence to medicines for persons with chronic medicines use, as well as the extent to which patients' beliefs about medicines are influenced by their level of perceived PCC.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey design was performed with adults using at least 3 chronic medicines per day. To measure the degree of medicines adherence, patients' ideas about medication, and PCC, four validated questionnaires were used: The Medication Adherence Report Scale (MARS-5), Beliefs about medicines questionnaire (BMQ), Client-Centered Care Questionnaire (CCCQ) and the Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9). Socio-demographics, health status, and drug-related burden were questioned as potential factors to impact the relationship between PCC and adherence.

Results

A sample of 459 persons participated. The mean score on the CCCQ (adjusted to pharmacotherapy) was 52.7 on 75 (sd = 8.83, range [18-70]). The top 20% scored 60 or more, the 20% lowest scores were 46 or less. Adherence levels were high, with a mean score of 22.6 on 25 on the MARS-5, and 88% scoring 20 or more. An increase in PCC corresponded to a higher chance of medicines adherence (OR 1.07, 95%CI [1.02-1.12]), corrected for age, the burden due to chronic diseases, the impact of side effects on daily life, and participants' beliefs about medicines. PCC showed positive correlations with the necessity of medicines use (r = 0.1, p = 0.016) and the balance between necessity and concerns (r = 0.3, p < 0.001); and negative correlations with levels of concerns (r = -0.3, p < 0.001) and scores on harmfulness (r = -0.3, p < 0.001) and overuse of medicines (r = -0.4, p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Patients with chronic medicine use perceived an average high level of people-centeredness in the pharmaceutical care they received. This PCC was weakly positively associated with adherence to their medicines. The higher PCC was evaluated, the more patients believed in the necessity of the medicines use and the better the balance between necessity and concerns. The people-centeredness of pharmaceutical care showed several shortcomings and can still be improved. As such, healthcare providers are advised to actively engage in PCC, and not to wait passively for information provided by the patient.

The my experience of taking medicines (MYMEDS) questionnaire for assessing medicines adherence barriers in post-myocardial infarction patients: development and utility

Background

The ‘My Experience of Taking Medicines’ (MYMEDS) questionnaire is a self-reporting tool for identifying modifiable adherence barriers among individuals prescribed post-myocardial infarction (MI) secondary prevention medicines (SPM) in clinical practice. It was found to be a useful tool to support the conduction of patient-centred consultation in cardiology outpatient leading to improved outcomes including better adherence to SPM and patient satisfaction. This study describes the rationale and development of the MYMEDS tool, its performance and usefulness in identifying modifiable barriers to adherence in cardiology medical practice including user feedback of 204 consecutive post-MI patients who completed an evaluation based on MYMEDS.

Methods

Modifiable non-adherence factors were initially identified based on literature review and stakeholder feedback. A draft MYMEDS questionnaire was piloted in 10 patients and adapted accordingly. The final version comprises six sections, covering current medicines, understanding and satisfaction with medicines, concerns about medicines, practical adherence barriers, fitting medicines into daily routine, and adherence to individual SPMs. The questionnaire was mailed to post-MI patients who then attended an outpatient medicines optimisation clinic.

Results

Mean age was 70.5 years and 67.6% were male. The tool was effective in revealing modifiable adherence barriers that could be addressed during the consultation. There were high rates of concern that SPMs could be harmful (33.2%) or overprescribed (43.2%), practical issues with swallowing medicines (8.2%), opening packaging (7.3%) or accessing repeat prescriptions (5.2%), forgetfulness (19.7%), and concerns about inconvenience (13.5%). Mean number of barriers per patient was 1.8 ± 1.5. The medications most commonly associated with non-adherence were statins (21.5%), angiotensin II receptor blockers (21.1%), and antiplatelet agents (18.5%). In total, 42.5% of patients acknowledged non-adherence behaviour. Patient feedback on MYMEDS was positive, with near-unanimous agreement that it was simple, clear and not too long, and that it enabled them to raise any concerns they had about their medicines. Patients reported that their individual medicines related needs were better addressed.

Conclusions

MYMEDS is a practical tool that can successfully identify modifiable barriers to SPM adherence which can be addressed in a clinical setting. It can be easily rolled out in daily clinical practice to enable individualised person-centred medicines optimisation consultation.

A systematic review and thematic synthesis of patients' experience of medicines adherence

BACKGROUND

Medicines non-adherence continues to be problematic in health care practice. After decades of research, few interventions have a robust evidence-based demonstrating their applicability to improve adherence. Phenomenology has a place within the health care research environment.

OBJECTIVE

To explore patients' lived experiences of medicines adherence reported in the phenomenonologic literature.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted to identify peer-reviewed and published phenomenological investigations in adults that aimed to investigate patients' lived experiences of medicines adherence. Studies were appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) Qualitative Research Tool. Thematic synthesis was conducted using a combination of manual coding and NVivo10 [QSR International, Melbourne] coding to aid data management.

RESULTS

Descriptive themes identified included i) dislike for medicines, ii) survival, iii) perceived need, including a) symptoms and side-effects and b) cost, and iv) routine. Analytic themes identified were i) identity and ii) interaction.

CONCLUSIONS

This work describes adherence as a social interaction between the identity of patients and medicines, mediated by interaction with family, friends, health care professionals, the media and the medicine, itself. Health care professionals and policy makers should seek to re-locate adherence as a social phenomenon, directing the development of interventions to exploit patient interaction with wider society, such that patients 'get to know' their medicines, and how they can be taken, throughout the life of the patient and the prescription.

Patient experiences of taking antidepressants for depression: a secondary qualitative analysis

BACKGROUND

Depression is one of the most commonly encountered mental health problems leading to significant morbidity and mortality and high medical and societal costs. Antidepressant prescribing in the UK has more than doubled in the last decade. There are a variety of factors that have been shown to affect a patient's experience of taking antidepressants The aim of this research was to explore patient narratives interviews about depression and its treatment in order to improve patient and health professional understanding of what it is like to use antidepressants.

METHODS

This study involved a supplementary secondary qualitative analysis of 80 in-depth narrative interviews from Healthtalkonline. Patients' experiences of using medicines for depression were explored in the context of their social, occupational and emotional impact, to identify any additional issues and to clarify what type of information people want to find after being prescribed a medicine. The interviews were conducted by the University of Oxford and had received ethical approval and been consented and copyrighted for this purpose. Data were analyzed thematically.

RESULTS

The most prominent theme was the coexistence of several conflicting issues around the use of medicines and participants were mostly influenced by the reality of their experiences, beliefs, attitudes and interaction with health care. Antidepressants appear to occupy a central place in many people' lives. Many people described how their medicines had helped them and how this served as a reinforcement to continue taking them in order to maintain a "normal life." Those who had stopped taking their antidepressants were likely to have experienced adverse reactions and had unsatisfactory interactions with health care professionals. A lack of information about antidepressants was a major cause of dissatisfaction often shaping attitudes to antidepressants'.

CONCLUSIONS

People's experiences with antidepressant use have a major impact on treatment continuation and hence treatment outcomes. Further studies are needed on depressed patients' beliefs about their depression and treatment and how they relate to different stages of illness, their interactions with health care and their adherence to antidepressants.