Perspectives on Treatment Decisions, Preferences, and Adherence and Long-Term Management in Asthma and COPD: A Qualitative Analysis of Patient, Caregiver, and Healthcare Provider Insights.

IF 2 3区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Patient preference and adherence Pub Date : 2024-11-14 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.2147/PPA.S467870
Miguel Román-Rodríguez, Ilona McMullan, Michelle Warner, Christopher H Compton, Ruth Tal-Singer, Jean M Orlow, MeiLan K Han
{"title":"Perspectives on Treatment Decisions, Preferences, and Adherence and Long-Term Management in Asthma and COPD: A Qualitative Analysis of Patient, Caregiver, and Healthcare Provider Insights.","authors":"Miguel Román-Rodríguez, Ilona McMullan, Michelle Warner, Christopher H Compton, Ruth Tal-Singer, Jean M Orlow, MeiLan K Han","doi":"10.2147/PPA.S467870","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. This analysis assessed patient, caregiver, and healthcare provider (HCP) opinions regarding asthma and COPD diagnosis and treatment, including inhaler device preferences.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>Insights were from: (1) face-to-face/telephone patient/HCP communications with GSK Global Medical Teams; (2) social media listening; (3) a self-completed online patient/caregiver survey. Data were anonymized and informed consent was provided. Qualitative outputs were extracted, analyzed inductively, and coded per key themes, such as treatment preferences (including perceptions of single inhaler triple therapy [SITT] versus multiple inhaler triple therapy [MITT]) and long-term treatment goals. Data could be assigned to ≥1 theme.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, 2966 patient and HCP insights (patients, 1150; HCPs, 1816), 988 social media posts, and 44 survey responses (patients, 33; caregivers, 11) were included. Within this analysis, some patients delayed seeking medical advice due to lack of disease understanding and used alternative information sources to better understand treatment options (eg, social media). Patients preferred SITT over MITT in terms of convenience, ease of use, and perceived efficacy; some believed that MITT provided greater coverage due to frequent dosing. HCPs recognized the tendency of patient preferences to drive treatment decisions, and highlighted a reluctance to change therapy among some patients, particularly those well controlled in current therapy. Patients preferred therapies with a shorter onset of action. Patients tended to measure treatment success by symptom improvement and quality of life, whereas HCPs measured treatment success through clinical tests. HCPs reported a lack of patient awareness of the mortality risk associated with COPD.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There is discordance between patient and HCP perceptions of treatment success and goals in asthma and COPD. Improved patient education and HCP-patient communication are needed to facilitate meaningful shared decision-making, optimize care plans, and provide early treatment options.</p>","PeriodicalId":19972,"journal":{"name":"Patient preference and adherence","volume":"18 ","pages":"2295-2306"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11571923/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Patient preference and adherence","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S467870","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. This analysis assessed patient, caregiver, and healthcare provider (HCP) opinions regarding asthma and COPD diagnosis and treatment, including inhaler device preferences.

Patients and methods: Insights were from: (1) face-to-face/telephone patient/HCP communications with GSK Global Medical Teams; (2) social media listening; (3) a self-completed online patient/caregiver survey. Data were anonymized and informed consent was provided. Qualitative outputs were extracted, analyzed inductively, and coded per key themes, such as treatment preferences (including perceptions of single inhaler triple therapy [SITT] versus multiple inhaler triple therapy [MITT]) and long-term treatment goals. Data could be assigned to ≥1 theme.

Results: Overall, 2966 patient and HCP insights (patients, 1150; HCPs, 1816), 988 social media posts, and 44 survey responses (patients, 33; caregivers, 11) were included. Within this analysis, some patients delayed seeking medical advice due to lack of disease understanding and used alternative information sources to better understand treatment options (eg, social media). Patients preferred SITT over MITT in terms of convenience, ease of use, and perceived efficacy; some believed that MITT provided greater coverage due to frequent dosing. HCPs recognized the tendency of patient preferences to drive treatment decisions, and highlighted a reluctance to change therapy among some patients, particularly those well controlled in current therapy. Patients preferred therapies with a shorter onset of action. Patients tended to measure treatment success by symptom improvement and quality of life, whereas HCPs measured treatment success through clinical tests. HCPs reported a lack of patient awareness of the mortality risk associated with COPD.

Conclusion: There is discordance between patient and HCP perceptions of treatment success and goals in asthma and COPD. Improved patient education and HCP-patient communication are needed to facilitate meaningful shared decision-making, optimize care plans, and provide early treatment options.

关于哮喘和慢性阻塞性肺病的治疗决定、偏好、依从性和长期管理的观点:对患者、护理者和医疗保健提供者见解的定性分析。
目的:哮喘和慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)与严重的发病率和死亡率有关。本分析评估了患者、护理人员和医疗保健提供者 (HCP) 对哮喘和慢性阻塞性肺病诊断和治疗的意见,包括对吸入器设备的偏好:洞察来自:(1) 患者/医护人员与葛兰素史克全球医疗团队的面对面/电话沟通;(2) 社交媒体聆听;(3) 患者/护理人员自我填写的在线调查。数据进行了匿名处理,并获得了知情同意。对定性结果进行提取、归纳分析,并根据治疗偏好(包括对单吸入器三联疗法 [SITT] 与多吸入器三联疗法 [MITT] 的看法)和长期治疗目标等关键主题进行编码。结果:共纳入 2966 份患者和 HCP 观点(患者 1150 份;HCP 1816 份)、988 份社交媒体帖子和 44 份调查回复(患者 33 份;护理人员 11 份)。在这项分析中,一些患者由于缺乏对疾病的了解而延迟寻求医疗建议,并使用其他信息来源(如社交媒体)来更好地了解治疗方案。与 MITT 相比,患者更倾向于选择 SITT,因为 SITT 方便、易用且疗效明显;有些患者认为 MITT 由于用药频繁,覆盖范围更大。高级保健人员认识到患者的偏好往往会影响治疗决策,并强调一些患者不愿改变疗法,尤其是那些在当前疗法中得到良好控制的患者。患者偏好起效时间较短的疗法。患者倾向于通过症状改善和生活质量来衡量治疗成功与否,而保健医生则通过临床检测来衡量治疗成功与否。据专业保健人员报告,患者对与慢性阻塞性肺疾病相关的死亡风险缺乏认识:结论:患者和保健医生对哮喘和慢性阻塞性肺病的治疗成功率和目标的认识不一致。需要加强患者教育和保健医生与患者之间的沟通,以促进有意义的共同决策、优化护理计划并提供早期治疗方案。
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
Patient preference and adherence
Patient preference and adherence MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
4.50%
发文量
354
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Patient Preference and Adherence is an international, peer reviewed, open access journal that focuses on the growing importance of patient preference and adherence throughout the therapeutic continuum. The journal is characterized by the rapid reporting of reviews, original research, modeling and clinical studies across all therapeutic areas. Patient satisfaction, acceptability, quality of life, compliance, persistence and their role in developing new therapeutic modalities and compounds to optimize clinical outcomes for existing disease states are major areas of interest for the journal. As of 1st April 2019, Patient Preference and Adherence will no longer consider meta-analyses for publication.
×
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