Patients' expectations of medicines--a review and qualitative synthesis

Idealistic, realistic, and unrealistic expectations of pharmacological treatment in persons with type 2 diabetes in primary care

Introduction

Information on treatment expectations in diabetes is scarce for Mexican and Latino populations. We determined idealistic, realistic, and unrealistic expectations for metformin, insulin, and glyburide in primary care. We also explored the association between sociodemographic attributes, time since diagnosis, and expectations.

Methods

This was a cross-sectional study conducted during 2020-2022 in governmental primary care centers. We consecutively included persons with type 2 diabetes aged 30-70 years under pharmacological medication (n = 907). Questions were developed using information relevant to expectation constructs. Data were collected by interview. We used descriptive statistics, a test of the difference between two proportions, and multivariate ordinal logistic regression.

Results

A high percentage of participants would like to have fewer daily pills/injections or the option of temporarily stopping their medication. Realistic expectations ranged from 47% to 70%, and unrealistic expectations from 31 to 65%. More insulin users wished they could take a temporary break (p < 0.05) or would like to be able to change the route of administration (p < 0.001) than metformin users. More persons with diabetes on insulin expected realistic expectations compared to those on metformin or glyburide (p ≤ 0.01). Being able to interrupt medication upon reaching the glucose goal was higher in combined therapy users (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Time since diagnosis, place of residence, sex, and diabetes education were factors associated to expectations. Management of expectations must be reinforced in primary care persons with type 2 diabetes undergoing pharmacological medication.

Dynamics of Patient-Based Benefit-Risk Assessment of Medicines in Chronic Diseases: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

A critical gap exits in understanding the dynamics of patient-based benefit-risk assessment (BRA) of medicines in chronic diseases during the disease journey.

PURPOSE

To systematically review and synthesize current evidence on the changes of patients' preferences about the benefits and risks of medicines during their disease journey including the influence of disease duration and severity, and previous treatment experience.

METHODS

A systematic review of studies identified in PubMed and Embase, from inception to November 2020, was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement. Articles were eligible if they analyzed adult patient-based BRA of medicines with a chronic disease, based on at least one of the pre-specified dimensions: disease severity, disease duration, or previous treatment experience.

RESULTS

A total of 26,228 articles were identified and 105 were eligible for inclusion. Of these, 85 detected a variation in patient-based BRA of medicines with at least one of the pre-specified criteria. Patients with higher disease severity and more treatment experience have increased risk tolerance. It remains inconclusive whether disease duration directly affects the relative importance of a patient's preference.

CONCLUSION

Factors important for patients' BRA of their medicines during a chronic disease journey vary more with their clinical situation and previous treatment experience than with time since diagnosis. Due to the importance of these factors on patients' perspectives and potential impact on their decision-making and eventually their clinical outcomes, there is a need for more studies to assess the dynamics of patients' BRA in every disease.

Why do patients struggle with their medicines?-A phenomenological hermeneutical study of how patients experience medicines in their everyday lives

Why do so many people struggle with their medicines despite decades of research on medicines taking? Research into how people experience medicines in their everyday life remains scarce with the majority of research in this area of focusing on whether or not people take their medicines as prescribed. Hence, this study used a phenomenological hermeneutical qualitative design to gain a deeper understanding of individuals’ perspectives on the lived experience of medicine-taking. Findings from this study highlight five main themes where participants experience medicines as: 1) life-saving and indispensable, 2) normal and a daily routine, 3) confusing and concerning, 4) unsuitable without adjustment, and 5) intrusive and unwelcome. These results can be the basis for mutually agreed prescribing through a co-creative approach that aims at enhancing open and honest dialogues between patients and healthcare professionals in partnership about medicines.

Avoiding harm: Tackling problematic polypharmacy through strengthening expert generalist practice

Problematic polypharmacy is a growing challenge. Medication that is intended to improve patients' health and wellbeing is instead becoming part of the problem. The way we practice medicine has become a driver for the problem. Dealing with the challenge will need us to think differently about how we do clinical care. A 2013 Kings Fund report stated that tackling problematic polypharmacy requires us to actively build a principle of compromise into the way we use medicines. There are implications for how we consult and make decisions with patients, in how we design health practice and systems to support that decision making, and, in our understanding of the process of research, how we generate the knowledge that informs practice. This review considers the current state of play in all 3 areas and identifies some of the work we still need to do in order to generate the practice-based evidence needed to tackle this most challenging problem. Finding a way to redesign practice to address problematic polypharmacy could offer a template for tackling other related complex issues facing medical practice such as multimorbidity, chronic pain and complex mental health.

Towards equity: a qualitative exploration of the implementation and impact of a digital educational intervention for pharmacy professionals in England

BACKGROUND

Patients belonging to marginalised (medically under-served) groups experience problems with medicines (i.e. non-adherence, side effects) and poorer health outcomes largely due to inequitable access to healthcare (arising from poor governance, cultural exclusion etc.). In order to promote service equity and outcomes for patients, the focus of this paper is to explore the implementation and impact of a new co-produced digital educational intervention on one National Health Service (NHS) funded community pharmacy medicines management service.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews with a total of 32 participants. This included a purposive sample of 22 community pharmacy professionals, (16 pharmacists and 6 pharmacy support staff) all who offered the medicine management service. In order to obtain a fuller picture of the barriers to learning, five professionals who were unable to complete the learning were also included. Ten patients (from a marginalised group) who had received the service (as a result of the digital educational intervention) were also interviewed. Drawing on an interpretative analysis, Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) was used as a theoretical framework.

RESULTS

Three themes are explored. The first is how the digital learning intervention was implemented and applied. Despite being well received, pharmacists found it challenging completing and cascading the learning due to organisational constraints (e.g. lack of time, workload). Using the four NPT constructs (coherence, cognitive participation, collective action and reflexive monitoring) the second theme exposes the impact of the learning and the organisational process of 'normalisation'. Professional reflective accounts revealed instances where inequitable access to health services were evident. Those completing the intervention felt more aware, capable and better equipped to engage with the needs of patients who were from a marginalised group. Operationally there was minimal structural change in service delivery constraining translation of learning to practice. The impact on patients, explored in our final theme, revealed that they experience significant disadvantage and problems with their medicines. The medication review was welcomed and the discussion with the pharmacist was helpful in addressing their medicine-related concerns.

CONCLUSIONS

The co-produced digital educational intervention increases pharmacy professionals' awareness and motivation to engage with marginalised groups. However structural barriers often hindered translation into practice. Patients reported significant health and medicine challenges that were going unnoticed. They welcomed the additional support the medication review offered. Policy makers and employers should better enable and facilitate ways for pharmacy professionals to better engage with marginalised groups. The impact of the educational intervention on patients' health and medicines management could be substantial if supported and promoted effectively.

Patient expectations of hypertension and diabetes medication: Excessive focus on short-term benefits

Objectives:

The objectives of this study are to assess patient perspectives on their perceived benefits of hypertension and diabetes medications and determine associations between perceived benefits and demographics, adherence, and disease control.

Methods:

We interviewed 60 adults with type 2 diabetes and hypertension on oral medications. Participants were asked what benefits they expected from taking their medications. Transcripts were analyzed using a modified template approach. Benefits were categorized into short-term, long-term, or misconceptions (e.g. “medications cure diabetes”). Associations between perceived benefits and demographics, adherence, hemoglobin A1c, and blood pressure were analyzed.

Results:

In general, participants had relatively high self-reported medication adherence and well-controlled disease. All participants identified benefits of their hypertension medications; however, only 85% identified benefits of their diabetes medications. Half described only short-term benefits (e.g. lower blood sugar) (48%); almost one-third described both short- and long-term benefits (e.g. prevent complications) (30% and 28%, respectively). In multivariate analysis, participants with higher comorbidity were more likely to name long-term benefits of hypertension medications (odds ratio 13.3 (1.8–97.8), p = 0.01).

Discussion:

Participants perceived short-term benefits of hypertension and diabetes medications more often than long-term benefits; participants with higher comorbidity identified more long-term benefits. Further studies are warranted to determine whether additional education on long-term benefits may improve adherence.

"It's so hard taking pills when you don't know what they're for": a qualitative study of patients' medicine taking behaviours and conceptualisation of medicines in the context of rheumatoid arthritis

Background

Patients with chronic illnesses are often required to take lifelong medication to alleviate symptoms and prevent disease progression. Many patients find it difficult to adhere to prescribed medication for various reasons, some of which may link to the way they conceptualise medicines and understand their illness and treatment. This study explores the medicine taking behaviours of patients presenting with Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA), a chronic inflammatory autoimmune disease. We focused particularly on patients’ conceptualisation and understanding of medicines within this disease context, against a backdrop of scarce healthcare resources.

Methods

We conducted semi-structured interviews with 18 female patients at a rheumatology clinic in South Africa, as well as a review of participants’ medical records. We conducted a secondary analysis of the data using thematic analysis and framework analysis principles.

Results

Participants reported a range of medicine taking behaviours including self-medicating, adding complementary and alternative medicines (CAM) or traditional remedies, and sometimes acquiring prescribed medicines illegally. Participants provided insights into their understanding of what constitutes a medicine and what substances can be added to a prescribed regimen, which impacted on adherence. Importantly, the majority of participants demonstrated poor understanding of their illness, medications, regimens and dosage instructions.

Conclusions

Medicine taking in the context of RA, within the studied demographic, is complex and appears strongly mediated by individual and contextual factors. Poor patient understanding, individual conceptualisation of medicines and medicine taking, and the availability of a range of additional medicines and remedies impact on adherence. Based on these findings, we make some suggestions for how healthcare providers can play a greater role in educating patients living with RA about medicines, CAM and traditional remedies, as well as medicine taking behaviours.

Understanding deprescribing of preventive cardiovascular medication: a Q-methodology study in patients

BACKGROUND

Patients with low cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk potentially use preventive cardiovascular medication unnecessarily. Our aim was to identify various viewpoints and beliefs concerning the preventive CVD management of patients with low CVD risk using preventive cardiovascular medication. Furthermore, we investigated whether certain viewpoints were related to a preference for deprescription or the continuation of preventive cardiovascular medication.

METHODS

In 2015, we purposively sampled patients from the intervention arm of the Evaluating Cessation of STatins and Antihypertensive Treatment In primary Care (ECSTATIC) trial in the Netherlands for this study. Participants made Q-sorts by ranking 43 statements concerning preventive CVD management from "totally disagree" to "totally agree". These Q-sorts were analyzed using PQMethod 2.35 software. A varimax procedure presented the distinguishing viewpoints that were favored by our participants. We used group discussion quotations to underline our findings. For validation purposes, we asked participants how well each viewpoint fitted them.

RESULTS

Of 291 invited patients, 33 participated. Thirty-one Q-sorts were analyzed. The following three viewpoints were found: 1) a controlling viewpoint, in which patients held the belief that monitoring blood pressure and cholesterol levels is important (n=13, of which seven had their medication deprescribed and six continued their medication); 2) an autonomous viewpoint, in which patients showed a dislike of medication (n=8, of which seven had their medication deprescribed and one had it continued); and 3) an afraid viewpoint, in which patients were fearful of developing CVD (n=8, of which two had their medication deprescribed and six had it continued). Seventy-four percent of the participants believed that the viewpoint to which they were assigned was a good fit.

CONCLUSION

Three well-discriminating viewpoints about preventive CVD management were determined. Knowing and recognizing these viewpoints is effective for general practitioners when discussing the deprescribing of preventive cardiovascular medications with patients and may be used to promote implementation of deprescription.

Meta-synthesis of qualitative research: the challenges and opportunities

Synthesis of qualitative studies is an emerging area that has been gaining more interest as an important source of evidence for improving health care policy and practice. In the last decade there have been numerous attempts to develop methods of aggregating and synthesizing qualitative data. Although numerous empirical qualitative studies have been published about different aspects of health care research, to date, the aggregation and syntheses of these data has not been commonly reported, particularly in pharmacy practice related research. This paper describes different methods of conducting meta-synthesis and provides an overview of selected common methods. The paper also emphasizes the challenges and opportunities associated with conducting meta-synthesis and highlights the importance of meta-synthesis in informing practice, policy and research.