How and Why Do Multimorbid Patients Decide to Follow Their Multiple Medication Prescriptions? Looking Beyond the Risk-Benefit Scale.

IF 2.6 2区 医学 Q2 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE
Juliette Artignan, Kevin Diter, Pascal Clerc, Perrine Capmas, Nathalie Pelletier-Fleury
{"title":"How and Why Do Multimorbid Patients Decide to Follow Their Multiple Medication Prescriptions? Looking Beyond the Risk-Benefit Scale.","authors":"Juliette Artignan, Kevin Diter, Pascal Clerc, Perrine Capmas, Nathalie Pelletier-Fleury","doi":"10.1177/10497323241311508","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Current public health guidelines emphasize the necessity to optimize medication prescriptions for multimorbid patients with multiple medications to ensure patient adherence while minimizing harm and waste. Nevertheless, there is limited understanding of how these patients choose to follow their medication regimen. This study aimed to describe the variations in the way patients account for their adherence (and non-adherence) to multiple medications and to draw links between these variations and patients' socioeconomic status. Twenty semi-structured interviews were conducted with patients aged 47-82 years with cardiovascular disease and multiple medically treated chronic conditions. They were transcribed and analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. We first describe shared concerns about multiple medication taking and situations of medical uncertainty which arose when patients encounter conflicting medical instructions. We then highlight two overarching approaches through which patients conceptualized following their medical prescriptions. Some patients predominantly deferred the choice of medication to their physicians, while others steered the decision-making process and closely monitored what they were prescribed. These styles reflected different ways of engaging with doctors, dealing with side effects, and evaluating prescriptions and were linked to patients' socioeconomic status. We discuss our results by borrowing from Hirschman's theory of voice, exit, and loyalty. Findings argue in favor of better coordinated care to reduce prescription ambiguities and highlight the importance of patients with multimorbidity being given sufficient time and space to voice their concerns.</p>","PeriodicalId":48437,"journal":{"name":"Qualitative Health Research","volume":" ","pages":"10497323241311508"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Qualitative Health Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10497323241311508","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Current public health guidelines emphasize the necessity to optimize medication prescriptions for multimorbid patients with multiple medications to ensure patient adherence while minimizing harm and waste. Nevertheless, there is limited understanding of how these patients choose to follow their medication regimen. This study aimed to describe the variations in the way patients account for their adherence (and non-adherence) to multiple medications and to draw links between these variations and patients' socioeconomic status. Twenty semi-structured interviews were conducted with patients aged 47-82 years with cardiovascular disease and multiple medically treated chronic conditions. They were transcribed and analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. We first describe shared concerns about multiple medication taking and situations of medical uncertainty which arose when patients encounter conflicting medical instructions. We then highlight two overarching approaches through which patients conceptualized following their medical prescriptions. Some patients predominantly deferred the choice of medication to their physicians, while others steered the decision-making process and closely monitored what they were prescribed. These styles reflected different ways of engaging with doctors, dealing with side effects, and evaluating prescriptions and were linked to patients' socioeconomic status. We discuss our results by borrowing from Hirschman's theory of voice, exit, and loyalty. Findings argue in favor of better coordinated care to reduce prescription ambiguities and highlight the importance of patients with multimorbidity being given sufficient time and space to voice their concerns.

目前的公共卫生指南强调,有必要为使用多种药物的多病症患者优化用药处方,以确保患者坚持用药,同时最大限度地减少伤害和浪费。然而,人们对这些患者如何选择服药方案的了解却很有限。本研究旨在描述患者在坚持(或不坚持)多种药物治疗方面的差异,并总结这些差异与患者社会经济地位之间的联系。我们对 47-82 岁患有心血管疾病和多种慢性疾病的患者进行了 20 次半结构式访谈。我们对访谈内容进行了转录,并采用反思性主题分析法对访谈内容进行了分析。我们首先描述了患者对多种药物治疗的共同担忧,以及在遇到相互矛盾的医疗指导时产生的医疗不确定性。然后,我们强调了患者在概念上遵照医嘱用药的两种主要方法。一些患者主要将用药选择权交给医生,而另一些患者则主导决策过程并密切关注医生开给他们的处方。这些风格反映了与医生接触、处理副作用和评估处方的不同方式,并与患者的社会经济地位有关。我们借用赫希曼的话语权、退出和忠诚理论来讨论我们的研究结果。研究结果支持更好地协调医疗服务,以减少处方的模糊性,并强调了给予多病患者足够的时间和空间来表达他们的担忧的重要性。
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
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
6.20%
发文量
109
期刊介绍: QUALITATIVE HEALTH RESEARCH is an international, interdisciplinary, refereed journal for the enhancement of health care and to further the development and understanding of qualitative research methods in health care settings. We welcome manuscripts in the following areas: the description and analysis of the illness experience, health and health-seeking behaviors, the experiences of caregivers, the sociocultural organization of health care, health care policy, and related topics. We also seek critical reviews and commentaries addressing conceptual, theoretical, methodological, and ethical issues pertaining to qualitative enquiry.
×
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