Can differences in medical drug compliance between European countries be explained by social factors: analyses based on data from the European Social Survey, round 2

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Non-compliance with medication is a major health problem. Cultural differences may explain different compliance patterns. The size of the compliance burden and the impact of socio-demographic and socio-economic status within and across countries in Europe have, however, never been analysed in one survey. The aim of this study was to analyse 1) medical drug compliance in different European countries with respect to socio-demographic and socio-economic factors, and to examine 2) whether cross-national differences could be explained by these factors.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A multi-country interview survey <it>European Social Survey, Round 2 </it>was conducted in 2004/05 comprising questions about compliance with last prescribed drug. Non-compliance was classified as primary and secondary, depending whether the drug was purchased or not. Statistical weighting allowed for adjustment for national differences in sample mechanisms. A multiple imputation strategy was used to compensate for missing values. The analytical approach included multivariate and multilevel analyses.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The survey comprised 45,678 participants. Response rate was 62.5% (range 43.6–79.1%). Reported compliance was generally high (82%) but the pattern of non-compliance showed large variation between countries. Some 3.2% did not purchase the most recently prescribed medicine, and 13.6% did not take the medicine as prescribed. Multiple regression analyses showed that each variable had very different and in some cases opposite impact on compliance within countries. The multilevel analysis showed that the variation between countries did not change significantly when adjusted for increasing numbers of covariates.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Reported compliance was generally high but showed wide variation between countries. Cross-national differences could, however, not be explained by the socio-demographic and socio-economic variables measured.</p

Comparison of quality-of-care measures in U.S. patients with end-stage renal disease secondary to lupus nephritis vs. other causes

BACKGROUND: Patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) due to lupus nephritis (LN-ESRD) may be followed by multiple providers (nephrologists and rheumatologists) and have greater opportunities to receive recommended ESRD-related care. We aimed to examine whether LN-ESRD patients have better quality of ESRD care compared to other ESRD patients. METHODS: Among incident patients (7/05–9/11) with ESRD due to LN (n = 6,594) vs. other causes (n = 617,758), identified using a national surveillance cohort (United States Renal Data System), we determined the association between attributed cause of ESRD and quality-of-care measures (pre-ESRD nephrology care, placement on the deceased donor kidney transplant waitlist, and placement of permanent vascular access). Multivariable logistic and Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and hazard ratios (HRs). RESULTS: LN-ESRD patients were more likely than other ESRD patients to receive pre-ESRD care (71% vs. 66%; OR = 1.68, 95% CI 1.57-1.78) and be placed on the transplant waitlist in the first year (206 vs. 86 per 1000 patient-years; HR = 1.42, 95% CI 1.34–1.52). However, only 24% had a permanent vascular access (fistula or graft) in place at dialysis start (vs. 36%; OR = 0.63, 95% CI 0.59–0.67). CONCLUSIONS: LN-ESRD patients are more likely to receive pre-ESRD care and have better access to transplant, but are less likely to have a permanent vascular access for dialysis, than other ESRD patients. Further studies are warranted to examine barriers to permanent vascular access placement, as well as morbidity and mortality associated with temporary access, in patients with LN-ESRD

Preventive Health Care Measures Before and After Start of Renal Replacement Therapy

OBJECTIVE: To describe utilization of preventive health care measures in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), both in the year prior to onset of renal replacement therapy (RRT), and in the first year of RRT. METHODS: We identified a large cohort of patients with CKD in the New Jersey Medicaid and Medicare programs with fixed enrollment into the cohort at 1 year prior to RRT. We applied commonly used quality assurance instruments (Health Plan Employer Data and Information Set measures) and defined levels and correlates of use of preventive care measures before and after RRT. These included mammography, Pap smear testing, prostate cancer screening, diabetic eye exams, and glycosylated hemoglobin testing (HbA1c). We employed logistic regression models with adjustment for age, race, gender, comorbidity, timing of first nephrologist contact, socioeconomic status, and calendar year of first RRT. RESULTS: Overall, screening rates were low with the exception of diabetic eye exams. Prostate cancer screening, diabetic eye exams, and HbA1c testing were performed less often after onset of RRT compared to the year before (P < .05). Although screening rates before RRT improved considerably over the period of observation for these measures (P < .05), this was not the case once patients were on RRT. CONCLUSIONS: Preventive health care interventions remain underutilized among RRT patients. Greater attention to such preventive measures could lead to significant improvements in the health status of such vulnerable patients. Thus, quality improvement of the general health care for patients on RRT should become a priority in renal health policy