A qualitative study of cardiac rehabilitation patients’ perspectives on taking medicines: implications for the ‘medicines-resistance’ model of medicine-taking

Background The appropriate use of medicines continues to be an important area of inter-disciplinary research activity both in the UK and beyond. Key qualitative work in this area in the last decade has included the ‘medicines resistance’ model of medicine-taking, which was based on a meta-ethnography of 37 qualitative studies. This model proposed that patients approach medicine-taking as ‘passive accepters’, ‘active accepters’, ‘active modifiers’ or ‘complete rejecters’, of which the latter two categories were considered to show ‘resistance’ to medicines. However, critical assessment of the model appears to be currently lacking, particularly in terms of its use in clinical practice. This paper seeks to contribute to the literature in this area by critically examining the practical application of the model in light of the findings from a qualitative, follow-up study of cardiac rehabilitation patients’ perspectives and experiences of using medicines. Methods Following ethical approval, in-depth, audiotaped, qualitative interviews were conducted with fifteen patients who had completed a UK hospital-based cardiac rehabilitation programme. Participants were aged 42–65, white British and from a variety of socioeconomic backgrounds. Interview topics included perspectives on coronary heart disease, medicine-taking and lifestyle changes. Follow-up interviews with ten patients approximately nine months later explored whether their perspectives had changed. Results The findings suggest that the active/passive and accepter/modifier distinctions may not allow for clear determination of which profile a patient fits into at any given point, and that definitions such as ‘accepter’ and ‘resistance’ may be insufficiently discerning to categorise patients’ use of medicines in practice. These problems appear to arise when the issue of patients’ accounts about medicines adherence are considered, since patients may have concerns or disquiet about medicines whether or not they are adherent and the model does not consider disquiet in isolation from adherence. Conclusions Practical application of the ‘medicines resistance’ model of medicine-taking may be problematic in this patient group. Dissociation of disquiet about medicines from medicines adherence may allow for a focus on helping patients to resolve their disquiet, if possible, without this necessarily having to be viewed in terms of its potential effect on adherence

From consumerism to active dependence: Patterns of medicines use and treatment decisions among patients with atopic dermatitis

In this article, findings from in-depth interviews with 12 people diagnosed with atopic dermatitis (AD) are described. The findings describe the range of strategies used to manage atopic dermatitis, including use of conventional medicines. A strong theme identified in informants’ accounts centred on concerns about the risks of illness and long-term use of conventional medicines, which acted as a strong incentive for patients to seek alternatives to conventional treatments. However, despite their significant efforts to do so, patients were eventually forced to return to and rely on conventional medicines because of their efficacy in alleviating and treating symptoms. These findings are discussed in relation to the sociological literature on consumerism, risk and reflexivity in health. We argue that our findings exemplify how living with and managing a chronic illness may not be straightforward and the choices of treatment at hand may be limited. Consequently, this may limit the potential opportunities accruing from adopting a reflexive or consumerist approach to managing illness