Evaluation of methods measuring medication adherence in patients with polypharmacy: a longitudinal and patient perspective.

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS
ACS Applied Bio Materials Pub Date : 2024-06-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-01 DOI:10.1007/s00228-024-03661-1
Laura Mortelmans, Eva Goossens, Marjan De Graef, Jana Van Dingenen, Anne-Marie De Cock, Mirko Petrovic, Patricia van den Bemt, Tinne Dilles
{"title":"Evaluation of methods measuring medication adherence in patients with polypharmacy: a longitudinal and patient perspective.","authors":"Laura Mortelmans, Eva Goossens, Marjan De Graef, Jana Van Dingenen, Anne-Marie De Cock, Mirko Petrovic, Patricia van den Bemt, Tinne Dilles","doi":"10.1007/s00228-024-03661-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To explore patients' willingness to have medication adherence measured using different methods and evaluate the feasibility and validity of their combination (i.e., pill counts, a medication diary and a questionnaire assessing adherence two months post-discharge).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>(1) A cross-sectional evaluation of the willingness of patients with polypharmacy to have their medication adherence measured post-discharge. (2) Medication adherence was monitored during two months using pill counts based on preserved medication packages and a diary in which patients registered their adherence-related problems. During a home visit, the Probabilistic Medication Adherence Scale (ProMAS) and a questionnaire on feasibility were administered.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 144 participants completed the questionnaire at discharge. The majority was willing to communicate truthfully about their adherence (97%) and to share adherence-related information with healthcare providers (99%). More participants were willing to preserve medication packages (76%) than to complete a medication diary (67%) during two months. Most participants reported that preserving medication packages (91%), completing the diary (99%) and the ProMAS (99%) were no effort to them. According to the majority of participants (60%), pill counts most accurately reflected medication adherence, followed by the diary (39%) and ProMAS (1%). Medication adherence measured by pill counts correlated significantly with ProMAS scores, but not with the number of diary-reported problems. However, adherence measured by the medication diary and ProMAS correlated significantly.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Combining tools for measuring adherence seems feasible and can provide insight into the accordance of patients' actual medication use with their prescribed regimen, but also into problems contributing to non-adherence.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-024-03661-1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To explore patients' willingness to have medication adherence measured using different methods and evaluate the feasibility and validity of their combination (i.e., pill counts, a medication diary and a questionnaire assessing adherence two months post-discharge).

Methods: (1) A cross-sectional evaluation of the willingness of patients with polypharmacy to have their medication adherence measured post-discharge. (2) Medication adherence was monitored during two months using pill counts based on preserved medication packages and a diary in which patients registered their adherence-related problems. During a home visit, the Probabilistic Medication Adherence Scale (ProMAS) and a questionnaire on feasibility were administered.

Results: A total of 144 participants completed the questionnaire at discharge. The majority was willing to communicate truthfully about their adherence (97%) and to share adherence-related information with healthcare providers (99%). More participants were willing to preserve medication packages (76%) than to complete a medication diary (67%) during two months. Most participants reported that preserving medication packages (91%), completing the diary (99%) and the ProMAS (99%) were no effort to them. According to the majority of participants (60%), pill counts most accurately reflected medication adherence, followed by the diary (39%) and ProMAS (1%). Medication adherence measured by pill counts correlated significantly with ProMAS scores, but not with the number of diary-reported problems. However, adherence measured by the medication diary and ProMAS correlated significantly.

Conclusion: Combining tools for measuring adherence seems feasible and can provide insight into the accordance of patients' actual medication use with their prescribed regimen, but also into problems contributing to non-adherence.

Abstract Image

多药合用患者用药依从性测量方法评估:纵向和患者视角。
目的:探讨患者使用不同方法(即药片计数、用药日记和出院后两个月的用药依从性评估问卷)进行用药依从性测量的意愿,并评估其组合的可行性和有效性。方法:(1)对使用多种药物的患者出院后进行用药依从性测量的意愿进行横断面评估。(2)在两个月的时间里,根据保存的药物包装进行药片计数,并通过日记记录患者在用药过程中遇到的相关问题,从而对患者的用药依从性进行监测。在家访期间,进行了用药依从性概率量表(ProMAS)和可行性问卷调查:共有 144 名参与者在出院时完成了问卷调查。大多数参与者愿意如实告知自己的用药依从性(97%),并愿意与医疗服务提供者分享与用药依从性相关的信息(99%)。在两个月内,愿意保留药物包装(76%)的参与者多于愿意填写用药日记(67%)的参与者。大多数参与者表示,保存药包(91%)、完成用药日记(99%)和 ProMAS(99%)对他们来说并不费力。大多数参与者(60%)认为,药片计数能最准确地反映服药依从性,其次是日记(39%)和 ProMAS(1%)。通过药片计数衡量的服药依从性与 ProMAS 分数有显著相关性,但与日记中报告的问题数量没有相关性。然而,通过用药日记和ProMAS测量的用药依从性有明显的相关性:结论:结合多种工具来测量依从性似乎是可行的,不仅可以了解患者实际用药与处方用药的一致性,还可以了解导致不依从的问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信