Complementary and alternative medicines (CAMs) and adherence to mental health medications

BACKGROUND: Medication regimes are often poorly adhered to, and the negative consequences of this are well recognised. The dynamics underlying non-adherence are less understood. This paper examines adherence to prescription medications for mental health difficulties in relation to the use of complementary and alternative medicines (CAMs). This was based on suggestions that within medical pluralism, CAMs may reduce adherence to conventional prescription medications for reasons such as their further complicating the medication regime or their being perceived as a substitute with less adverse side effects than conventional prescription medications. METHODS: Data used was from the National Comorbidity Study Replication (NCS-R), specifically those 1396 individuals who reported taking a prescription drug for mental health difficulties within the last 12 months and under the supervision of a health professional. This subsample was selected due to their being the only subgroup questioned regarding their medication adherence. Other demographic and health factors were also considered. RESULTS: The use of complementary medicines alongside the conventional medicines bore no significant relation to odds of reporting adherence versus non adherence. Ethnicity and medication count were significant predictors of adherence versus non-adherence. CONCLUSIONS: The above findings are discussed from the point of both promoting the use of CAMs and increasing health professionals’ understanding of the dynamics underlying adherence, or the lack thereof, and subsequently informing interventions to reduce the problems associated with this issue in terms of increased health care needs and reduced quality of life

What elements of the patient–pharmacist relationship are associated with patient satisfaction?

Suliman A AlGhurair, Scot H Simpson, Lisa M GuirguisDepartment of Pharmacy Practice, University of Alberta, Edmonton, CanadaBackground: Optimal medication management requires an effective relationship between the patient and health care professional. As pharmacists move from the traditional dispensing role to become more actively involved in patient care, factors influencing their relationship with patients need to be identified. A better understanding of these factors will facilitate more effective relationships.Objective: To explore the effect of patient-perceived pharmacist expertise on relationship quality, self-efficacy, patient satisfaction, and relationship commitment.Methods: This was a cross-sectional study conducted in five community pharmacies within the province of Alberta, Canada. A total of 500 patients were asked to complete a set of validated, self-administered questionnaires that measured perceived pharmacist expertise, relationship quality, self-efficacy, patient satisfaction, and relationship commitment. Hierarchical multiple regression was used to examine the associations between variables.Results: A total of 112 surveys were returned. Internal consistency ranged from 0.86–0.92, suggesting good reliability, except for the relationship commitment scale. There was a significant, positive correlation between patient-perceived pharmacist expertise and quality of the relationship (0.78; P < 0.001). There were also significant, positive correlations between perceived expertise and patient satisfaction (0.52; P < 0.001) and relationship commitment (0.47; P < 0.001). These associations remained significant but the magnitude of correlation decreased when relationship quality was taken into account (0.55; P < 0.001 and 0.56; P < 0.001, respectively). On the other hand, there was no significant association between either patient-perceived pharmacist expertise or relationship quality and medication self-efficacy (0.06; P = 0.517 and 0.10; P = 0.292, respectively).Conclusion: Patient-perceived pharmacist expertise is an independent determinant of relationship quality, patient satisfaction, and relationship commitment. Relationship quality also appears to mediate the effect of perceived expertise on patient satisfaction and relationship commitment.Keywords: relationship quality, pharmacist expertise, self-efficacy, relationship commitment, satisfactio

Accuracy of a screening tool for medication adherence: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the Morisky Medication Adherence Scale-8

This systematic review examined the reliability and validity of the Morisky Medication Adherence Scale-8 (MMAS-8), which has been widely used to assess patient medication adherence in clinical research and medical practice.Of 418 studies identified through searching 4 electronic databases, we finally analyzed 28 studies meeting the selection criteria of this study regarding the reliability and validity of MMAS-8 including sensitivity and specificity. Meta-analysis for Cronbach's α, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), sensitivity and specificity to detect a patient with nonadherence to medication were performed. The pooled estimates for Cronbach's α and ICC were calculated using the random-effects weighted T transformation. A bivariate random-effects model was used to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity.The pooled Cronbach's α estimate for type 2 diabetes group in 7 studies and osteoporosis group in 3 studies were 0.67 (95% Confidence Interval(CI), 0.65 to 0.69) and 0.77 (95% CI, 0.72 to 0.83), respectively. With regard to test-retest, the pooled ICC for type 2 diabetes group in 3 studies and osteoporosis group in 2 studies were 0.81 (95% CI, 0.75 to 0.85) and 0.80 (95% CI, 0.74 to 0.85). For a cut-off value of 6, the pooled sensitivity and specificity in 12 studies were 0.43 (95% CI, 0.33 to 0.53) and 0.73 (95% CI, 0.68 to 0.78), respectively.The MMAS-8 had acceptable internal consistency and reproducibility in a few diseases like type 2 diabetes. Using the cut-off value of 6, criterion validity was not enough good to validly screen a patient with nonadherence to medication. However, this study did not calculated a pooled estimate for criterion validity using the higher values than 6 as a cut-off value since most of included individual studies did not report criterion validity based on those values