Issues potentially affecting quality of life arising from long-term medicines use: a qualitative study

Background Polypharmacy is increasing and managing large number of medicines may create a burden for patients. Many patients have negative views of medicines and their use can adversely affect quality of life. No studies have specifically explored the impact of general long-term medicines use on quality of life. Objective To determine the issues which patients taking long-term medicines consider affect their day-to-day lives, including quality of life. Setting Four primary care general practices in North West England Methods Face-to-face interviews with adults living at home, prescribed four or more regular medicines for at least 1 year. Interviewees were identified from primary care medical records and purposively selected to ensure different types of medicines use. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically. Results Twenty-one interviews were conducted and analysed. Patients used an average of 7.8 medicines, 51 % were preventive, 40 % for symptom relief and 9 % treatment. Eight themes emerged: relationships with health professionals, practicalities, information, efficacy, side effects, attitudes, impact and control. Ability to discuss medicines with health professionals varied and many views were coloured by negative experiences, mainly with doctors. All interviewees had developed routines for using multiple medicines, some requiring considerable effort. Few felt able to exert control over medicines routines specified by health professionals. Over half sought additional information about medicines whereas others avoided this, trusting in doctors to guide their medicines use. Patients recognised their inability to assess efficacy for many medicines, notably those used for prophylaxis. All were concerned about possible side effects and some had poor experiences of discussing concerns with doctors. Medicines led to restrictions on social activities and personal life to the extent that, for some, life can revolve around medicines. Conclusion There is a multiplicity and complexity of issues surrounding medicines use, which impact on day-to-day lives for patients with long-term conditions. While most patients adapt to long-term medicines use, others did so at some cost to their quality of life

Treatment Burden and Chronic Illness: Who is at Most Risk?

Background: There is a need to ascertain the type and level of treatment burden experienced by people with co-morbidities. This is important to identify the characteristics of participants who are at most risk of treatment burden.  Objective: The aim of this study is to identify the characteristics of participants who are at most risk of treatment burden.  Methods: This cross-sectional study was part of a larger project and recruitment was conducted across four Australian regions: rural, semi-rural and metropolitan. Participants were asked about their treatment burden using an adapted version of a measure, which included the following five dimensions: medication, time and administrative, lifestyle change, social life and financial burden.  Results: In total, 581 participants with various chronic health conditions reported a mean global treatment burden of 56.5 out of 150 (standard deviation = 34.5). Number of chronic conditions (β = .34, p < 0.01), age, (β = −.27, p < 0.01), the presence of an unpaid carer (β = .22, p < 0.001) and the presence of diabetes mellitus and other endocrine conditions (β = .13, p < 0.01) were significant predictors of overall treatment burden. For the five dimensions of treatment burden, social, medicine and administrative burden were predicted by the same cluster of variables: number of conditions, age, presence of an unpaid carer and diabetes. However, in addition to these variables, financial dimensions were also predicted by education level, ethnicity and health insurance. Educational level also influenced lifestyle burden.  Conclusion: A substantial proportion of community-dwelling adults with chronic conditions have considerable levels of treatment burden. Specifically, health professionals should provide greater focus on managing overall treatment burden for persons who are of young age, have an endocrine condition or an unpaid carer, or a combination of these factors

Rethinking the patient: using Burden of Treatment Theory to understand the changing dynamics of illness

&lt;b&gt;Background&lt;/b&gt; In this article we outline Burden of Treatment Theory, a new model of the relationship between sick people, their social networks, and healthcare services. Health services face the challenge of growing populations with long-term and life-limiting conditions, they have responded to this by delegating to sick people and their networks routine work aimed at managing symptoms, and at retarding - and sometimes preventing - disease progression. This is the new proactive work of patient-hood for which patients are increasingly accountable: founded on ideas about self-care, self-empowerment, and self-actualization, and on new technologies and treatment modalities which can be shifted from the clinic into the community. These place new demands on sick people, which they may experience as burdens of treatment.&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;b&gt;Discussion&lt;/b&gt; As the burdens accumulate some patients are overwhelmed, and the consequences are likely to be poor healthcare outcomes for individual patients, increasing strain on caregivers, and rising demand and costs of healthcare services. In the face of these challenges we need to better understand the resources that patients draw upon as they respond to the demands of both burdens of illness and burdens of treatment, and the ways that resources interact with healthcare utilization.&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;b&gt;Summary&lt;/b&gt; Burden of Treatment Theory is oriented to understanding how capacity for action interacts with the work that stems from healthcare. Burden of Treatment Theory is a structural model that focuses on the work that patients and their networks do. It thus helps us understand variations in healthcare utilization and adherence in different healthcare settings and clinical contexts

Brief encounters: what do primary care professionals contribute to peoples' self-care support network for long-term conditions? A mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Primary care professionals are presumed to play a central role in delivering long-term condition management. However the value of their contribution relative to other sources of support in the life worlds of patients has been less acknowledged. Here we explore the value of primary care professionals in people's personal communities of support for long-term condition management. METHODS: A mixed methods survey with nested qualitative study designed to identify relationships and social network member's (SNM) contributions to the support work of managing a long-term condition conducted in 2010 in the North West of England. Through engagement with a concentric circles diagram three hundred participants identified 2544 network members who contributed to illness management. RESULTS: The results demonstrated how primary care professionals are involved relative to others in ongoing self-care management. Primary care professionals constituted 15.5 % of overall network members involved in chronic illness work. Their contribution was identified as being related to illness specific work providing less in terms of emotional work than close family members or pets and little to everyday work. The qualitative accounts suggested that primary care professionals are valued mainly for access to medication and nurses for informational and monitoring activities. Overall primary care is perceived as providing less input in terms of extended self-management support than the current literature on policy and practice suggests. Thus primary care professionals can be described as providing 'minimally provided support'. This sense of a 'minimally' provided input reinforces limited expectations and value about what primary care professionals can provide in terms of support for long-term condition management. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care was perceived as having an essential but limited role in making a contribution to support work for long-term conditions. This coalesces with evidence of a restricted capacity of primary care to take on the work load of self-management support work. There is a need to prioritise exploring the means by which extended self-care support could be enhanced out-with primary care. Central to this is building a system capable of engaging network capacity to mobilise resources for self-management support from open settings and the broader community

Estimation of minimally important differences in EQ-5D utility and VAS scores in cancer

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Understanding what constitutes an important difference on a HRQL measure is critical to its interpretation. The aim of this study was to provide a range of estimates of minimally important differences (MIDs) in EQ-5D scores in cancer and to determine if estimates are comparable in lung cancer.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A retrospective analysis was conducted on cross-sectional data collected from 534 cancer patients, 50 of whom were lung cancer patients. A range of minimally important differences (MIDs) in EQ-5D index-based utility (UK and US) scores and VAS scores were estimated using both anchor-based and distribution-based (1/2 standard deviation and standard error of the measure) approaches. Groups were anchored using Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (PS) ratings and FACT-G total score-based quintiles.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>For UK-utility scores, MID estimates based on PS ranged from 0.10 to 0.12 both for all cancers and for lung cancer subgroup. Using FACT-G quintiles, MIDs were 0.09 to 0.10 for all cancers, and 0.07 to 0.08 for lung cancer. For US-utility scores, MIDs ranged from 0.07 to 0.09 grouped by PS for all cancers and for lung cancer; when based on FACT-G quintiles, MIDs were 0.06 to 0.07 in all cancers and 0.05 to 0.06 in lung cancer. MIDs for VAS scores were similar for lung and all cancers, ranging from 8 to 12 (PS) and 7 to 10 (FACT-G quintiles).</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Important differences in EQ-5D utility and VAS scores were similar for all cancers and lung cancer, with the lower end of the range of estimates closer to the MID, i.e. 0.08 for UK-index scores, 0.06 for US-index scores, and 0.07 for VAS scores.</p

Automated telephone follow-up after breast cancer: an acceptability and feasibility pilot study

Traditional clinical follow-up after breast cancer is inefficient at detecting relapse and is poorly suited to detecting and ameliorating psychological problems. There is interest in developing more effective and efficient methods of follow-up. We report a prospective cohort study of the acceptability and feasibility of remote, automated telephone follow-up after breast cancer. Women with a history of breast cancer were approached at their annual follow-up visit. For participants, the follow-up questionnaire was administered on paper at baseline. In place of a clinic visit following year, the women completed the same questionnaire using an automated telephone system. All patients were given mammograms. A semi-structured interview was then conducted to assess the acceptability. The potential impact on clinic usage was assessed. In all, 110 of 121 women (91%) agreed to participate. Seventy-five patients (71%) completed follow-up using the new automated system 1 year later. Seventy-one of the 75 patients found the system easy to use. Forty-nine of the 75 (65.33%) liked the system and were happy to use it as their sole method of follow-up. A further 12% were happy to use it as part of their follow-up. In only 10.66% of participants were concerns raised which led to clinic attendance. Automated questionnaire-based telephone follow-up is acceptable to women and has the potential to reduce attendance at clinic. Further studies to validate this method further are planned

Uncovering treatment burden as a key concept for stroke care: a systematic review of qualitative research

&lt;b&gt;Background&lt;/b&gt; Patients with chronic disease may experience complicated management plans requiring significant personal investment. This has been termed ‘treatment burden’ and has been associated with unfavourable outcomes. The aim of this systematic review is to examine the qualitative literature on treatment burden in stroke from the patient perspective.&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;b&gt;Methods and findings&lt;/b&gt; The search strategy centred on: stroke, treatment burden, patient experience, and qualitative methods. We searched: Scopus, CINAHL, Embase, Medline, and PsycINFO. We tracked references, footnotes, and citations. Restrictions included: English language, date of publication January 2000 until February 2013. Two reviewers independently carried out the following: paper screening, data extraction, and data analysis. Data were analysed using framework synthesis, as informed by Normalization Process Theory. Sixty-nine papers were included. Treatment burden includes: (1) making sense of stroke management and planning care, (2) interacting with others, (3) enacting management strategies, and (4) reflecting on management. Health care is fragmented, with poor communication between patient and health care providers. Patients report inadequate information provision. Inpatient care is unsatisfactory, with a perceived lack of empathy from professionals and a shortage of stimulating activities on the ward. Discharge services are poorly coordinated, and accessing health and social care in the community is difficult. The study has potential limitations because it was restricted to studies published in English only and data from low-income countries were scarce.&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;b&gt;Conclusions&lt;/b&gt; Stroke management is extremely demanding for patients, and treatment burden is influenced by micro and macro organisation of health services. Knowledge deficits mean patients are ill equipped to organise their care and develop coping strategies, making adherence less likely. There is a need to transform the approach to care provision so that services are configured to prioritise patient needs rather than those of health care systems

Pain, psychological distress and health-related quality of life at baseline and 3 months after radical prostatectomy

BACKGROUND: Inadequate management of postoperative pain is common, and postoperative pain is a risk factor for prolonged pain. In addition to medical and technical factors, psychological factors may also influence the experience of postoperative pain. METHODS: Pain was measured postoperatively at 24, 48, and 72 hr in hospital and after 3 months at home in 140 patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP). Patients answered questionnaires about anxiety and depression (HAD scale) and health-related quality of life (SF-36) at baseline and 3 months after surgery. RESULTS: In the first 3 postoperative days, mild pain was reported by 45 patients (32%), moderate pain by 64 (45%), and severe pain by 31 (22%) on one or more days. High postoperative pain scores were correlated with length of hospital stay and with high pain scores at home. Forty patients (29%) reported moderate (n = 35) or severe (n = 5) pain after discharge from hospital. Patients who experienced anxiety and depression preoperatively had higher postoperative pain scores and remained anxious and depressed 3 months after surgery. The scores for the physical domains in the SF-36 were decreased, while the mental health scores were increased at 3 months. Anxiety and depression were negatively correlated with all domains of the SF-36. CONCLUSION: There is a need for nurses to be aware of the psychological status of RP patients and its impact upon patients' experience of postoperative pain and recovery. The ability to identify patients with psychological distress and to target interventions is an important goal for future research

The impact of cardiovascular medication use on patients’ daily lives: a cross-sectional study

Introduction The management of multiple long-term medicines use in patients with chronic diseases creates a burden for patients. However, limited research is performed on patients’ experienced medication-related burden and its impact on daily lives. Therefore, the aim of this study was to explore the impact of cardiovascular medication on different aspects of patients’ daily lives and to examine the differences of these aspects between adherent and non-adherent patients. Methods A cross-sectional study was performed in two community pharmacies in the Netherlands. Patients (?45 years) using cardiovascular medication participated. Data were collected by means of the Living with Medicines Questionnaire (LMQ-2) measuring the burden of medicines use on patients’ daily lives. Two equally group-sized samples of patients non-adherent to prescribed medicines as assessed with pharmacy refill data, and patients adherent to prescribed medicines were selected. Results In total, 196 patients participated (51% male, 71.0±10.6 years), of whom 96 patients were non-adherent to cardiovascular medication. Substantial proportions of patients experienced medication-related burden on different daily life aspects. This burden was mainly related to the acceptance of long-term medication use, medication-related concerns or dissatisfaction, the interference of medicines with social and daily lives, and the interaction and communication with health care providers. No statistically significant results were found when comparing the impact on patients’ daily lives between the adherent and non-adherent sample. Conclusion Health care providers should acknowledge the impact of multiple long-term medicine use on patient’s daily lives and should make an effort to diminish patients’ medication-related burden by improving patient-provider relationships and by providing adequate treatment information incorporating patients’ individual circumstances and preferences. This may facilitate the integration of long-term medicines use in patients’ daily lives