Matching Adherence Interventions to Patient Determinants Using the Theoretical Domains Framework

Introduction: Despite much research, interventions to improve medication adherence report disappointing and inconsistent results. Tailored approaches that match interventions and patient determinants of non-adherence were seldom used in clinical trials. The presence of a multitude of theoretical frameworks and models to categorize interventions and patient determinants complicated the development of common categories shared by interventions and determinants. We retrieved potential interventions and patient determinants from published literature on medication adherence, matched them like locks and keys, and categorized them according to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Methods: We identified the most relevant literature reviews on interventions and determinants in a pragmatic literature search, extracted all interventions and determinants, grouped similar concepts to umbrella terms and assigned them to TDF categories. All steps were finalized in consensus discussion between the authors. Results: Sixteen articles (5 with determinants, 11 with interventions) were included for analysis. We extracted 103 interventions and 42 determinants that we divided in 26 modifiable and 16 unmodifiable determinants. All interventions and modifiable determinants were matched within 11 categories (Knowledge; Skills; Social/professional role and identity; Beliefs about capabilities; Beliefs about consequences; Intentions; Memory, Attention and decision processes; Environmental context and resources; Social influences; Emotion; and Behavioral regulation). Conclusion: In published trials on medication adherence, the congruence between interventions and determinants can be assessed with matching interventions to determinants. To be successful, interventions in medication adherence should target current modifiable determinants and be tailored to the unmodifiable determinants. Modifiable and unmodifiable determinants need to be assessed at inclusion of intervention studies to identify the patients most in need of an adherence intervention. Our matched categories may be useful to develop interventions in trials that investigate the effectiveness of adherence interventions

Medication-Related Hospital Readmissions Within 30 Days of Discharge:Prevalence, Preventability, Type of Medication Errors and Risk Factors

Contains fulltext : 233572.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access

Development of a Framework Structuring Themes in the Course of Adverse Drug Reactions from a Patient's Perspective

INTRODUCTION: There is a need for more extensive information about adverse drug reactions (ADRs) for patients than currently available, including information on the course of ADRs. Aspects characterising the course of ADRs from the patient perspective have not been identified before.OBJECTIVE: We aimed to develop a framework based on common themes in the course of ADRs identified from patient descriptions in patient-reported ADRs.METHODS: In this qualitative study, patient descriptions of the course of patient-reported ADRs were analysed by a thematic analysis with an inductive approach using three different existing datasets containing patient-reported ADRs. Two datasets included patient-reported ADRs from cohort event monitoring of biologics and direct oral anticoagulants and one dataset included spontaneous reports from patients concerning medication for lower urinary tract symptoms. A conceptual framework was developed from the identified main themes and subthemes.RESULTS: Patient-reported data concerning 3888 ADRs were analysed. Six main themes with multiple subthemes were identified from patient descriptions of the course of ADRs. Four themes were descriptive: frequency of an ADR episode, duration of an ADR episode, moment or period of ADR occurrence, and development in the intensity of the ADR. Two themes concerned factors influencing the course of ADRs: triggering factors and improving factors.CONCLUSIONS: The presented framework illustrates that patients describe extensive details on the course and timeframe of ADRs. The identified themes provide a basis for improving the systematic data collection of more extensive details about ADRs from patients as a first step towards the provision of more comprehensive ADR information to patients.</p

Implementation of a pharmacist-led transitional pharmaceutical care programme:Process evaluation of Medication Actions to Reduce hospital admissions through a collaboration between Community and Hospital pharmacists (MARCH)

What is known and objective: The recently conducted Medication Actions to Reduce hospital admissions through a collaboration between Community and Hospital pharmacists (MARCH) transitional care programme, which aimed to test the effectiveness of a transitional care programme on the occurrence of ADEs post-discharge, did not show a significant effect. To clarify whether this non-significant effect was due to poor implementation or due to ineffectiveness of the intervention as such, a process evaluation was conducted. The aim of the study was to gain more insight into the implementation fidelity of MARCH. Methods: A mixed methods design and the modified Conceptual Framework for Implementation Fidelity was used. For evaluation, the implementation fidelity and moderating factors of four key MARCH intervention components (teach-back, the pharmaceutical discharge letter, the post-discharge home-visit and the transitional medication review) were assessed. Quantitative data were collected during and after the intervention. Qualitative data were collected using semi-structured interviews with MARCH healthcare professionals (community pharmacists, clinical pharmacists, pharmacy assistants and pharmaceutical consultants) and analysed using thematic analysis. Results and Discussion: Not all key intervention components were implemented as intended. Teach-back was not always performed. Moreover, 63% of the pharmaceutical discharge letters, 35% of the post-discharge home-visits and 44% of the transitional medication reviews were not conducted within their planned time frames. Training sessions, structured manuals and protocols with detailed descriptions facilitated implementation. Intervention complexity, time constraints and the multidisciplinary coordination were identified as barriers for the implementation. What is new and Conclusion: Overall, the implementation fidelity was considered to be moderate. Not all key intervention components were carried out as planned. Therefore, the non-significant results of the MARCH programme on ADEs may at least partly be explained by poor implementation of the programme. To successfully implement transitional care programmes, healthcare professionals require full integration of these programmes in the standard work-flow including IT improvements as well as compensation for the time investment

Patients’ and providers’ perspectives on medication relatedness and potential preventability of hospital readmissions within 30 days of discharge

Background: Hospital readmissions are increasingly used as an indicator of quality in health care. One potential risk factor of readmissions is polypharmacy. No studies have explored the patients’ perspectives on the medication relatedness and potential preventability of their readmissions. Objective: To compare the patients’ perspectives on the medication relatedness and potential preventability of their readmissions with the providers’ perspectives. Methods: Patients unplanned readmitted within 30 days after discharge at one of the participating departments of OLVG Hospital in Amsterdam were interviewed during their readmission. Patients’ perspectives regarding medication relatedness of their readmissions, the potential prevent

Stakeholders' perspectives on a patient-reported outcome measure-based drug safety monitoring system for immune-mediated inflammatory diseases

Background: Biologics are used as effective therapeutics to treat a variety of diseases. Even though biologics are widely used, knowledge on the post-marketing experience of patients is limited. Therefore, a framework was established for a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM)-based drug safety monitoring system for ADRs attributed to biologics, known as the ‘Dutch Biologic Monitor’. Objective: Generation of a multi-stakeholder perspective on the preferred setup, potential and added value of a PROM-based national drug safety monitoring system. Methods: Nineteen stakeholders were interviewed following a structured interview guide. Transcribed data were coded and analyzed to count frequencies and to generate recurring themes. Results: Stakeholders (84.2%) support the establishment of a national drug safety monitoring system, but the feasibility depends on the implementation process. The need for integration and assessment of PROMs on ADRs in clinical practice and the preference to monitor small molecules and new drugs were emphasized. Preferably, all pharmacological options per indication should be monitored. Conclusions: Stakeholders recommend to establish a PROM-based national drug safety monitoring system focused on ADRs attributed to biologics, small molecules, and new drugs. Moreover, PROMs on ADRs ideally need to become integrated in clinical practice to provide health-care providers more insight in patients’ perspectives

Immune-mediated inflammatory disease patients' preferences in adverse drug reaction information regarding biologics

Objectives: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly used in studies and medical practice to obtain information on patients’ perspectives toward their treatment or disease. However, most study outcomes are primarily directed at healthcare professionals. It was aimed to obtain insight in which type of information immune-mediated inflammatory disease (IMID) patients prefer to receive after participating in the Dutch Biologic Monitor (DBM), a PRO-based prospective cohort event monitoring system focused on adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Methods: A survey was conducted among DBM participants that wanted information about the results. Patients’ preferences were identified using twelve statements and rated with five-point Likert-type scales. Subgroup analyses and differences between statements were performed using Mann-Whitney U Tests. Results: The survey was completed by 591 patients (response rate 67.6%). Most respondents had inflammatory rheumatic diseases (76.8%) and used adalimumab (37.2%) or etanercept (33.2%). Respondents preferred results per IMID over aggregated results (p = <0.001). Information on whether patients with similar IMIDs experience ADRs (average 4.5), which biologics are most likely to cause ADRs (4.4) and whether ADRs disappear (4.4) were most interesting. Conclusion: DBM participants prefer to receive disease-specific information on ADRs that is tailored to their own biologic and IMID, including the outcome of ADRs

Gastrointestinal adverse drug reaction profile of etanercept:Real world data from patients and healthcare professionals

Objective. We aimed to describe the nature and frequency of gastrointestinal adverse drug reactions (GI-ADRs) of etanercept (ETN) using patient-reported and healthcare professional (HCP)-registered data and compared this frequency with the GI-ADR frequency of the widely used tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitor adalimumab (ADA). Methods. Reported GI-ADRs of ETN for rheumatic diseases were collected from the Dutch Biologic Monitor and DREAM registries. We described the clinical course of GI-ADRs and compared the frequency with ADA in both data sources using Fisher exact test. Results. Out of 416 patients using ETN for inflammatory rheumatic diseases in the Dutch Biologic Monitor, 25 (6%) patients reported 36 GI-ADRs. In the DREAM registries 11 GI-ADRs were registered for 9 patients (2.3%), out of 399 patients using ETN, with an incidence of 7.1 per 1000 patient-years. Most GI-ADRs consisted of diarrhea, nausea, and abdominal pain. GI-ADRs led to ETN discontinuation in 1 patient (4%) and dose adjustment in 4 (16%) in the Dutch Biologic Monitor. Eight GI-ADRs (73%) led to ETN discontinuation in the DREAM registries. The frequency of GI-ADRs of ETN did not significantly differ from GI-ADRs of ADA in both data sources (Dutch Biologic Monitor: ETN 8.7% vs ADA 5.3%, P = 0.07; DREAM: ETN 2.8% vs ADA 4.7%, P = 0.16). Conclusion. Most GI-ADRs associated with ETN concerned gastrointestinal symptoms. These ADRs may lead to dose adjustment or ETN discontinuation. The frequency of ETN-associated GI-ADRs was comparable to the frequency of ADA-associated GI-ADRs. Knowledge about these previously unknown ADRs can facilitate early recognition and improve patient communication

The Development of Practice Recommendations for Drug-Disease Interactions by Literature Review and Expert Opinion

Background Drug-disease interactions negatively affect the benefit/risk ratio of drugs for specific populations. In these conditions drugs should be avoided, adjusted, or accompanied by extra monitoring. The motivation for many drug-disease interactions in the Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC) is sometimes insufficiently supported by (accessible) evidence. As a consequence the translation of SmPC to clinical practice may lead to non-specific recommendations. For the translation of this information to the real world, it is necessary to evaluate the available knowledge about drug-disease interactions, and to formulate specific recommendations for prescribers and pharmacists. The aim of this paper is to describe a standardized method how to develop practice recommendations for drug-disease interactions by literature review and expert opinion. Methods The development of recommendations for drug-disease interactions will follow a six-step plan involving a multidisciplinary expert panel (1). The scope of the drug-disease interaction will be specified by defining the disease and by describing relevant effects of this drug-disease interaction. Drugs possibly involved in this drug-disease interaction are selected by checking the official product information, literature, and expert opinion (2). Evidence will be collected from the official product information, guidelines, handbooks, and primary literature (3). Study characteristics and outcomes will be evaluated and presented in standardized reports, including preliminary conclusions on the clinical relevance and practice recommendations (4). The multidisciplinary expert panel will discuss the reports and will either adopt or adjust the conclusions (5). Practice recommendations will be integrated in clinical decision support systems and published (6). The results of the evaluated drug-disease interactions will remain up-to-date by screening new risk information, periodic literature review, and (re)assessments initiated by health care providers. Actionable Recommendations The practice recommendations will result in advices for specific DDSI. The content and considerations of these DDSIs will be published and implemented in all Clinical Decision Support Systems in the Netherlands. Discussion The recommendations result in professional guidance in the context of individual patient care. The professional will be supported in the decision making in concerning pharmacotherapy for the treatment of a medical problem, and the clinical risks of the proposed medication in combination with specific diseases