The Role of Spirituality Healing with Perceptions of the Medical Encounter among Latinos

Little is known about the relationship between spirituality healing and perceptions about the medical encounter among Latinos. To examine the association between spirituality healing and attitudes of self-reported perceptions about the medical encounter. A cross-sectional telephone survey. 3,728 Latinos aged ≥18 years residing in the United States from Wave 1 of the Pew Hispanic Center/Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Latino Health Survey. Dependent variables were ever prayed for healing (yes/no), ever asked others to pray for healing (yes/no), considered important spiritual healing (very vs. somewhat or not important), and ever consulted a ‘curandero’ (folk healer in Latin America) (yes/no). The primary independent variables were feelings about the last time seeing a Doctor (confused by information given, or frustrated by lack of information) and perception of quality of medical care (excellent, good, fair or poor) within the past 12 months. Six percent of individuals reported that they had ever consulted a curandero, 60% prayed for healing, 49% asked others to pray for healing, and 69% considered spiritual healing as very important. In multivariable analyses, feeling confused was associated with increased odds of consulting a curandero (OR = 1.58; 95% CI, 1.02–2.45), praying for healing (OR = 1.30; 95% CI, 1.03–1.64), asking others to pray for healing (OR = 1.29; 95% CI, 1.03–1.62), and considering spiritual healing as very important (OR = 1.30; 95% CI, 1.01–1.66). Feeling frustrated by a lack of information was associated with asking others to pray for healing (OR = 1.29; 95% CI, 1.04–1.60). A better perception of quality of medical care was associated with lower odds of consulting a curandero (OR = 0.83; 95% CI, 0.70–0.98). Feelings about the medical encounter were associated with spirituality healing, praying for healing, and asking others to pray for healing. Feeling confused and perception of poor quality of medical care were associated with consulting a curandero

Factors associated with psychotropic drug use among community-dwelling older persons: A review of empirical studies

BACKGROUND: In the many descriptive studies on prescribed psychotropic drug use by community-dwelling older persons, several sociodemographic and other factors associated with drug use receive inconsistent support. METHOD: Empirical reports with data on at least benzodiazepine or antidepressant drug use in samples of older persons published between 1990 and 2001 (n = 32) were identified from major databases and analyzed to determine which factors are most frequently associated with psychotropic drug use in multivariate analyses. Methodological aspects were also examined. RESULTS: Most reports used probability samples of users and non-users and employed cross-sectional designs. Among variables considered in 5 or more reports, race, proximity to health centers, medical consultations, sleep complaints, and health perception were virtually always associated to drug use. Gender, mental health, and physical health status were associated in about two-thirds of reports. Associations with age, marital status, medication coverage, socioeconomic status, and social support were usually not observed. CONCLUSIONS: The large variety of methods to operationalize drug use, mental health status, and social support probably affected the magnitude of observed relationships. Employing longitudinal designs and distinguishing short-term from long-term use, focusing on samples of drug users exclusively, defining drug use and drug classes more uniformly, and utilizing measures of psychological well-being rather than only of distress, might clarify the nature of observed associations and the direction of causality. Few studies tested specific hypotheses. Most studies focused on individual characteristics of respondents, neglecting the potential contribution of health care professionals to the phenomenon of psychotropic drug use among seniors

The effect of clinician-patient alliance and communication on treatment adherence in mental health care: a systematic review

Background Nonadherence to mental health treatment incurs clinical and economic burdens. The clinician-patient alliance, negotiated through clinical interaction, presents a critical intervention point. Recent medical reviews of communication and adherence behaviour exclude studies with psychiatric samples. The following examines the impact of clinician-patient alliance and communication on adherence in mental health, identifying the specific mechanisms that mobilise patient engagement. Methods In December 2010, a systematic search was conducted in Pubmed, PsychInfo, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase and Cinahl and yielded 6672 titles. A secondary hand search was performed in relevant journals, grey literature and reference. Results 23 studies met the inclusion criteria for the review. The methodological quality overall was moderate. 17 studies reported positive associations with adherence, only four of which employed intervention designs. 10 studies examined the association between clinician-patient alliance and adherence. Subjective ratings of clinical communication styles and messages were assessed in 12 studies. 1 study examined the association between objectively rated communication and adherence. Meta-analysis was not possible due to heterogeneity of methods. Findings were presented as a narrative synthesis. Conclusions Clinician-patient alliance and communication are associated with more favourable patient adherence. Further research of observer rated communication would better facilitate the application of findings in clinical practice. Establishing agreement on the tasks of treatment, utilising collaborative styles of communication and discussion of treatment specifics may be important for clinicians in promoting cooperation with regimens. These findings align with those in health communication. However, the benefits of shared decision making for adherence in mental health are less conclusive than in general medicine

Development and evaluation of the Measure of Drug Self-Management

Stacy Cooper Bailey,1 Izabela E Annis,1 Daniel S Reuland,2 Autumn D Locklear,1 Betsy L Sleath,1 Michael S Wolf3 1Division of Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy, Eshelman School of Pharmacy, 2Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, 3Health Literacy and Learning Program, Division of General Internal Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA Background: Current adherence scales often fail to assess the full spectrum of behaviors associated with safe and appropriate drug use and may be unsuitable for patients with limited health literacy. We sought to develop and evaluate a comprehensive yet brief Measure of Drug Self-Management (MeDS) for use in research and clinical settings among diverse patient groups.Methods: Expert opinion, literature reviews, and interviews with patients and providers were utilized to create and revise potential items. Item performance testing was then conducted among 193 adult English-speaking patients with hypertension and diabetes. Factor analysis was used to inform item selection. Reliability was assessed via calculations of internal consistency. To assess construct and predictive validity, MeDS scores were compared with scores from the 8-item Morisky Medication Adherence Scale and relevant clinical measures (HbA1c, blood pressure, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol).Results: The MeDS demonstrated adequate internal consistency with a Cronbach’s α of 0.72. The MeDS was significantly correlated with the Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (r= -0.62; P<0.001). The MeDS was also associated with clinical measures, with statistically significant correlations found between MeDS scores and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (r= -0.27, P≤0.001) and diastolic blood pressure (r= -0.18, P=0.01).Conclusion: The MeDS seems to be a valid and reliable tool that can be used to assess medication self-management skills among diverse patients, including those with limited literacy skills. Future studies are needed to test the tool in actual use and explore clinical applications. Keywords: health literacy, medication adherence, measuremen

Types of Information Physicians Provide when Prescribing Antidepressants

BACKGROUND: Providing antidepressant information to patients may foster greater adherence to therapy. OBJECTIVE: To assess physician information-giving while prescribing antidepressants, and to identify factors that influence the provision of information. DESIGN: Randomized experiment using standardized patients (SPs). Standardized patients roles were generated by crossing 2 clinical conditions (major depression or adjustment disorder) with 3 medication request types (brand-specific, general, or none). PARTICIPANTS: One hundred and fifty-two general internists and family physicians recruited from solo and group practices and health maintenance organizations; cooperation rates ranged from 53% to 61%. MEASUREMENTS: We assessed physician information-giving by analyzing audio-recordings of interactions between physicians and SPs, and collected physician background information by survey. Generalized estimating equations were used to examine the influence of patient and physician factors on physicians' provision of information. RESULTS: One hundred and one physicians prescribed antidepressants, accounting for 131 interactions. The mean age of physicians was 46.3 years; 69% were males. Physicians mentioned an average of 5.7 specific topics of anti-depressant–related information (of a possible maximum of 11). The most frequently mentioned topic was purpose (96.1%). Physicians infrequently provided information about the duration of therapy (34.9%) and costs (21.4%). Standardized patients who presented with major depression received less information than those with adjustment disorder, and older and solo/private practice physicians provided significantly less information to SPs. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians provide limited information to patients while prescribing antidepressants, often omitting critical information that may promote adherence. Mechanisms are needed to ensure that patients receive pertinent antidepressant information