Barriers and facilitators to patients\' adherence to antiretroviral treatment in Zambia: a qualitative study

Patients\' adherence to antiretroviral therapy (ART) is important for effective medical treatment of HIV/AIDS. We conducted a qualitative interview study in the Copperbelt Province of Zambia in 2006. The aim of the study was to explore patients\' and health care professionals\' perceived barriers and facilitators to patients\' adherence to ART. Based on data from individual interviews and focus group interviews with a total of 60 patients and 12 health care professionals, we identified barriers and facilitators related to patients\' beliefs and behaviours, the health service, and socio-economic and cultural factors. Among the barriers we identified were lack of communication and information about ART, inadequate time during consultations, lack of follow-up and counselling, forgetfulness, stigma, discrimination and disclosure of HIV status, lack of confidentiality in the treatment centres, and lack of nutritional support. Feeling better, prospects of living longer, family support, information about ART, support for income-generating activities, disclosure of HIV status, prayers and transport support were among the facilitators. Our study suggests that several issues need to be considered when providing ART. Further research is needed to study interactions between patients and their health care providers. Our findings can inform interventions to improve adherence to ART. Keywords: AIDS, HIV, antiretroviral therapy, adherence, patient compliance, delivery of health care.SAHARA-J Vol. 5 (3) 2008: pp. 136-14

Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 1. Guidelines for guidelines

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO), like many other organisations around the world, has recognised the need to use more rigorous processes to ensure that health care recommendations are informed by the best available research evidence. This is the first of a series of 16 reviews that have been prepared as background for advice from the WHO Advisory Committee on Health Research to WHO on how to achieve this. OBJECTIVES: We reviewed the literature on guidelines for the development of guidelines. METHODS: We searched PubMed and three databases of methodological studies for existing systematic reviews and relevant methodological research. We did not conduct systematic reviews ourselves. Our conclusions are based on the available evidence, consideration of what WHO and other organisations are doing and logical arguments. KEY QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS: We found no experimental research that compared different formats of guidelines for guidelines or studies that compared different components of guidelines for guidelines. However, there are many examples, surveys and other observational studies that compared the impact of different guideline development documents on guideline quality. WHAT HAVE OTHER ORGANIZATIONS DONE TO DEVELOP GUIDELINES FOR GUIDELINES FROM WHICH WHO CAN LEARN? • Establish a credible, independent committee that evaluates existing methods for developing guidelines or that updates existing ones. • Obtain feedback and approval from various stakeholders during the development process of guidelines for guidelines. • Develop a detailed source document (manual) that guideline developers can use as reference material. WHAT SHOULD BE THE KEY COMPONENTS OF WHO GUIDELINES FOR GUIDELINES? • Guidelines for guidelines should include information and instructions about the following components: 1) Priority setting; 2) Group composition and consultations; 3) Declaration and avoidance of conflicts of interest; 4) Group processes; 5) Identification of important outcomes; 6) Explicit definition of the questions and eligibility criteria ; 7) Type of study designs for different questions; 8) Identification of evidence; 9) Synthesis and presentation of evidence; 10) Specification and integration of values; 11) Making judgments about desirable and undesirable effects; 12) Taking account of equity; 13) Grading evidence and recommendations; 14) Taking account of costs; 15) Adaptation, applicability, transferability of guidelines; 16) Structure of reports; 17) Methods of peer review; 18) Planned methods of dissemination & implementation; 19) Evaluation of the guidelines. WHAT HAVE OTHER ORGANIZATIONS DONE TO IMPLEMENT GUIDELINES FOR GUIDELINES FROM WHICH WHO CAN LEARN? • Obtain buy-in from regions and country level representatives for guidelines for guidelines before dissemination of a revised version. • Disseminate the guidelines for guidelines widely and make them available (e.g. on the Internet). • Develop examples of guidelines that guideline developers can use as models when applying the guidelines for guidelines. • Ensure training sessions for those responsible for developing guidelines. • Continue to monitor the methodological literature on guideline development

Improving prescribing of antihypertensive and cholesterol-lowering drugs: a method for identifying and addressing barriers to change

BACKGROUND: We describe a simple approach we used to identify barriers and tailor an intervention to improve pharmacological management of hypertension and hypercholesterolaemia. We also report the results of a post hoc exercise and survey we carried out to evaluate our approach for identifying barriers and tailoring interventions. METHODS: We used structured reflection, searched for other relevant trials, surveyed general practitioners and talked with physicians during pilot testing of the intervention. The post hoc exercise was carried out as focus groups of international researchers in the field of quality improvement in health care. The post hoc survey was done by telephone interviews with physicians allocated to the experimental group of a randomised trial of our multifaceted intervention. RESULTS: A wide range of barriers was identified and several interventions were suggested through structured reflection. The survey led to some adjustments. Studying other trials and pilot testing did not lead to changes in the design of the intervention. Neither the post hoc focus groups nor the post hoc survey revealed important barriers or interventions that we had not considered or included in our tailored intervention. CONCLUSIONS: A simple approach to identifying barriers to change appears to have been adequate and efficient. However, we do not know for certain what we would have gained by using more comprehensive methods and we do not know whether the resulting intervention would have been more effective if we had used other methods. The effectiveness of our multifaceted intervention is under evaluation in a randomised controlled trial

Back to thiazide-diuretics for hypertension: reflections after a decade of irrational prescribing

BACKGROUND: Whether newer antihypertensive drugs, such as calcium channel blockers, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and α blockers are more effective than thiazides and β blockers in preventing coronary disease, has been debated for years. DISCUSSION: Recently several trials addressing this issue have been finalised, and they provide a convincing answer: the newer drugs are no better than the older ones. In the largest trial to date (ALLHAT), thiazide-type diuretic was found to offer advantages over newer drugs. The medical community should now be capable of reaching consensus, and recommend thiazides as the first line therapy for the treatment of hypertension. Prescribing physicians, cardiologists, drug companies and health authorities are all partly responsible for the years of irrational prescribing that we have witnessed. SUMMARY: All stakeholders should now contribute in order to achieve what is clearly in the public's interest: implementing the use of thiazides in clinical practice

SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 12: Finding and using research evidence about resource use and costs

This article is part of a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers

Barriers to apply cardiovascular prediction rules in primary care: a postal survey

BACKGROUND: Although cardiovascular prediction rules are recommended by guidelines to evaluate global cardiovascular risk for primary prevention, they are rarely used in primary care. Little is known about barriers for application. The objective of this study was to evaluate barriers impeding the application of cardiovascular prediction rules in primary prevention. METHODS: We performed a postal survey among general physicians in two Swiss Cantons by a purpose designed questionnaire. RESULTS: 356 of 772 dispatched questionnaires were returned (response rate 49.3%). About three quarters (74%) of general physicians rarely or never use cardiovascular prediction rules. Most often stated barriers to apply prediction rules among rarely- or never-users are doubts concerning over-simplification of risk assessment using these instruments (58%) and potential risk of (medical) over-treatment (54%). 57% report that the numerical information resulting from prediction rules is often not helpful for decision-making in practice. CONCLUSION: If regular application of cardiovascular prediction rules in primary care is in demand additional interventions are needed to increase acceptance of these tools for patient management among general physicians

Effekt av tiltak for implementering av kliniske retningslinjer

Faglige retningslinjer skal bidra til kvalitetsforbedring, til å redu-sere uheldig variasjon i praksis, og til å begrense unødig eller feil bruk av ressurser. Helsedirektoratet har ansvar for å utarbeide og bidra til implementering av retningslinjer. Denne rapporten oppsummerer forskningsresultater om effekt av tiltak rettet mot helsepersonell, for implementering av faglige retningslinjer. Resultater fra systematiske oversikter viser at: • Tiltak som elektronisk beslutningsstøtte, kurs og møter, praksisbesøk, monitorering med tilbakemelding («audit & feedback») og skreddersydde tiltak for implementering av retningslinjer er sannsynligvis effektive, men - effektene varierer - effekten på klinisk praksis er oftest moderat - de forventede effektene på pasientenes helseutfall er beskjedne • For andre tiltak varierer resultatene mye på tvers av de forskjellige studiene. Det er vanskelig å forklare denne variasjonen. Dermed er det usikkert hvor stor gevinst vi kan forvente av å benytte disse tiltakene for implementering av retningslinjer. • For noen tiltak, som bruk av økonomiske insentiver og offentliggjøring av kvalitetsindikatorer, fant vi mangefull dokumentasjon. Følgelig kan vi ikke si så mye om hvor effektive de er

SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP)

This article is the Introduction to a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers

SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 14: Organising and using policy dialogues to support evidence-informed policymaking

This article is part of a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers