Enhancing provision of written medicine information in Australia: Pharmacist, general practitioner and consumer perceptions of the barriers and facilitators

Background: Written medicine information can play an important role in educating consumers about their medicines. In Australia, standardised, comprehensive written information known as Consumer Medicine Information (CMI) is available for all prescription medicines. CMI is reportedly under-utilised by general practitioners (GPs) and community pharmacists in consultations, despite consumer desire for medicine information. This study aimed to determine consumers', GPs' and community pharmacists' preferences for CMI provision and identify barriers and facilitators to its use. Method. Structured questionnaires were developed and administered to a national sample of Australian consumers (phone survey), community pharmacists and GPs (postal surveys) surrounding utilisation of CMI. Descriptive and comparative analyses were conducted. Results: Half of consumers surveyed wanted to receive CMI for their prescription medicine, with spoken information preferable to written medicine information for many consumers and healthcare professionals. GPs and pharmacists remained a preferred source of medicine information for consumers, although package inserts were appealing to many among all three cohorts. Overall pharmacists were the preferred provider of CMI primarily due to their medicine expertise, accessibility and perceived availability. GPs preferred CMI dissemination through both the GP and pharmacist. Some consumers preferred GPs as the provider of medicines information because of their knowledge of the patients' medicines and/or medical history, regularity of seeing the patient and good relationship with the patient. Common barriers to CMI provision cited included: time constraints, CMI length and perceptions that patients are not interested in receiving CMI. Facilitators to enhance provision included: strategies to increase consumer awareness, longer consultation times and counseling appointments, and improvements to pharmacy software technology and workflow. Conclusion: Medicine information is important to consumers, whether as spoken, written or a combination of both. A tailored approach is needed to ascertain individual patient preference for delivery and scope of medicine information desired so that appropriate information is provided. The barriers of time and perceived attitudes of healthcare practitioners present challenges which may be overcome through changes to workplace practices, adoption of identified facilitators, and education about the positive benefits of CMI as a tool to engage and empower patients

Pharmacist, general practitioner and consumer use of written medicine information in Australia: Are they on the same page?

Background: Providing written medicine information to consumers enables them to make informed decisions about their medicines, playing an important role in educating and improving health literacy. In Australia, standardized written medicine information called Consumer Medicine Information (CMI) is available for medicines as package inserts, computer prints, or leaflets. Consumers want and read CMI, but may not always ask for it. General practitioners (GPs) and pharmacists are an important source of written medicine information, yet may not always provide CMI in their practice. Objective: To examine and compare the awareness, use and provision of CMI by consumers, pharmacists and general practitioners (GPs). Methods: Based on previous studies, structured questionnaires were developed and administered to a national sample of consumers (phone survey); community pharmacists and GPs (postal surveys) about utilization of CMI. Descriptive, comparative and logistic regression analyses were conducted. Results: The respondents comprised of 349 pharmacists, 181 GPs and 1000 consumers. Two-thirds of consumers, nearly all (99%) pharmacists and 90% of GPs were aware of CMI. About 88% of consumers reported receiving CMI as a package insert, however most pharmacists (99%) and GPs (56%) reported providing computer-generated CMI. GPs' and pharmacists' main reason for providing CMI was on patient request. Reasons for not providing were predominantly because consumers were already taking the medicine, concerns regarding difficulty understanding the information, or potential non-adherence. Of the 691 consumers reportedly reading CMI, 35% indicated concerns after reading. Factors associated with reading included gender, type of CMI received and frequency of provision. Conclusion: Consumers want and read information about their medicines, especially when received from their GP or pharmacist. Healthcare professionals report usually discussing CMI when providing it to patients, although continued improvements in dissemination rates are desirable. Regular use of CMI remains a challenge, and ongoing strategies to promote CMI use are necessary to improve uptake of CMI in Australia

The burden of segregated respiratory diseases in India and the quality of care in these patients: Results from the Asia-Pacific Burden of Respiratory Diseases study

Background: Chronic respiratory diseases such as asthma, allergic rhinitis (AR), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and rhinosinusitis are becoming increasingly prevalent in the Asia-Pacific region. The Asia-Pacific Burden of Respiratory Diseases study examined the disease and economic burden of AR, asthma, COPD, and rhinosinusitis across the Asia-Pacific and more specifically India. Objectives: To estimate the proportion of adults receiving care for asthma, AR, COPD, and rhinosinusitis and assess the economic burden, both direct and indirect of these chronic respiratory disease. Subjects and Methods: Consecutive participants aged ≥18 years with a primary diagnosis of asthma, AR, COPD, or rhinosinusitis were enrolled. Surveys comprising questions about respiratory disease symptoms, healthcare resource utilization, work productivity, and activity impairment were completed by treating physicians and participants during one study visit. Costs, indirect and direct, that contributed to treatment for each of the four respiratory diseases were calculated. Results: A total of 1000 patients were enrolled. Asthma was the most frequent primary diagnosis followed by AR, COPD, and rhinosinusitis. A total of 335 (33.5%) patients were diagnosed with combinations of the four respiratory diseases; the most frequently diagnosed combinations were asthma/AR and rhinosinusitis/AR. Cough or coughing up sputum was the primary reason for the current visit by patients diagnosed with asthma and COPD while AR patients reported a watery, runny nose, and sneezing; patients with rhinosinusitis primarily reported a colored nasal discharge. The mean annual cost per patient was US$637 (SD 806). The most significant driver of direct costs was medications. The biggest cost component was productivity loss. Conclusions: Given the ongoing rapid urbanization of India, the frequency of respiratory diseases and their economic burden will continue to rise. Efforts are required to better understand the impact and devise strategies to appropriately allocate resources