Medication delivery and dispensing interval preferences of people who use antihypertensive medications in Australia: a survey study

IF 8.5 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Carissa Bonner, Michael A Fajardo, Rachael M Keast, Emily Atkins, Niamh Chapman, Kristie R Weir, Anthony Rodgers, Aletta E Schutte
{"title":"Medication delivery and dispensing interval preferences of people who use antihypertensive medications in Australia: a survey study","authors":"Carissa Bonner,&nbsp;Michael A Fajardo,&nbsp;Rachael M Keast,&nbsp;Emily Atkins,&nbsp;Niamh Chapman,&nbsp;Kristie R Weir,&nbsp;Anthony Rodgers,&nbsp;Aletta E Schutte","doi":"10.5694/mja2.70034","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Pharmacy-related costs and fees comprise 51% of the total cost of hypertension medications in Australia, largely because of 30-day dispensing periods, increasing out-of-pocket costs for patients.<span><sup>1</sup></span> In 2022, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) recommended 60- or 90-day dispensing periods for hypertension medications, a proposal supported by the Australian Hypertension Taskforce.<span><sup>2</sup></span> The World Health Organization recommends 90-day dispensing periods for improving medication adherence and long term blood pressure control.<span><sup>3</sup></span> The recent move from 30- to 60-day dispensing in Australia to reduce costs<span><sup>4, 5</sup></span> has been controversial.<span><sup>6</sup></span></p><p>We therefore explored the perspectives of hypertension medication purchasers in Australia to provide information that could inform dispensing policy. We investigated medication dispensing method preferences in an online survey codesigned with community panel members by the Sydney Health Literacy Lab.<span><sup>7</sup></span> The design phase included iterative discussion, development, testing, and refinement by a group of seven men and women aged 30–85 years with differing cardiovascular risk and medications experience. Forced choice questions that compared different dispensing options were developed (Box 1). Estimated costs for people with or without concession card holders were based on Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) copayment thresholds and prices in May 2024 (Box 2).<span><sup>8</sup></span></p><p>The participants in our survey were members of the Dynata market research panel (https://www.dynata.com), who receive points for completing a survey they could exchange for gift vouchers. Participation was anonymous, but we collected demographic characteristics, medication experience, and dispensing preference information. We used soft quota sampling to ensure diversity with respect to age (over or under 65 years of age), education (with or without university education), and gender (men or women) to recruit a national sample of 2000 adults (18 years or older) currently using blood pressure medications, sufficiently large to facilitate exploratory demographic subgroup analyses (Supporting Information, part 2). The Qualtrics survey (https://www.qualtrics.com) was available for online completion during 27 November 2024 – 21 January 2025. We summarise participant characteristics as descriptive statistics. We assessed the preferred mode of medication collection (pharmacy pickup or postal delivery) when the cost implications of choices were not provided in logistic multivariate regression models adjusted for reaching the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) safety threshold, location (major city or other), preferred medication delivery duration, education level, gender, age, and income; we report adjusted odds ratios (aORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Analyses were undertaken in SPSS 29 (IBM). Free text responses were thematically coded. The University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee approved the study (2024/HE000957).</p><p>A total of 2054 people participated in the study; 912 (44%) were aged 65 years or older, 1014 (50%) were women, 1106 (54%) had university education, and 1576 (77%) lived in major cities. Reported weekly income was less than $1250 for 1121 people (55%) (Supporting Information, table 1), 1335 (65%) were concession card holders, and 1044 (51%) usually reached the PBS safety net each year. Systolic blood pressure in the range 130–144 mmHg was reported by 912 people (44%), 145 mmHg or higher by 404 (20%).</p><p>When costs implications were not included with the question, 1797 participants (89%) preferred pharmacy pickup and 234 (11%) postal delivery. Preference for pharmacy pickup was associated with not having a university education (aOR, 3.78; 95% CI, 2.57–5.57), not usually reaching the PBS safety net threshold (aOR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.28–2.96), not having a concession card (aOR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.23–3.01), not living in a major city (aOR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.02–2.67), and preference for 30- or 60-day dispensing period (aOR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.64–3.09); it was more likely for men (aOR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.14–2.15) and increased with age (per year: aOR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.02–1.04), and was not influenced by income (aOR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.93–1.05) (Supporting Information, table 2). Reasons provided in open responses for preferring pharmacy pickup included the opportunity for social interaction, exercise, and medical advice, and not trusting postal delivery. Reasons for preferring postal delivery included the time saving and convenience.</p><p>When the cost implications of the options were provided with the forced choice questions, most participants preferred pharmacy pickup to postal delivery (choices 1 and 2; 75–83% preferred pharmacy pickup). This pattern applied to people with or without concession cards, and for both 60- and 90-day dispensing periods (Box 2; Supporting Information, figure 1).</p><p>When costs implications were not included with the question, 659 participants (32%) preferred 30-day dispensing, 642 (31%) 60-day dispensing, 413 (20%) 90-day dispensing, and 56 (3%) 120-day dispensing. Reasons for preferring shorter dispensing periods (30 or 60 days) included concerns about medicine quality, expiry, storage, and dose changes, and preferring the status quo. Reasons for preferring longer dispensing periods (60 or 120 days) included convenience, ease of remembering, and avoiding running out.</p><p>When the cost implications of the options were provided with the forced choice questions, most participants preferred 90-day dispensing to 60-day dispensing (choices 3 and 6; 69–92% preferred 90-day dispensing) and 120-day to 30-day dispensing (choices 4 and 5; 83–92% preferred 120-day dispensing). This pattern applied to people with or without concession cards, and for both delivery modes (pharmacy pickup and postal delivery) (Box 2; Supporting Information, figure 1).</p><p>We found that a large majority of people who use hypertension medications prefer in-person pickup at pharmacies to postal delivery, and longer dispensing intervals, when these choices are associated with lower out-of-pocket costs. Preferences differed by both demographic and behavioural factors; some participants, for example, saw broader social and health management benefits in pharmacy pickup. Some participants worried about the reliability of postal delivery methods, while others viewed postal delivery with longer dispensing periods as convenient and timesaving.</p><p>Limitations of our study include the use of an online market panel sample that may not be representative of all Australian adults who use hypertension medications. The gender and education characteristics of our participant group were similar to those of the adult Australian population,<span><sup>9</sup></span> and the age distribution was similar to that for Australian adults with high blood pressure.<span><sup>10</sup></span></p><p>Our survey findings will be used to guide a clinical trial that will investigate whether longer dispensing periods for anti-hypertensive medications affect treatment adherence. They could also inform future decision making, given recent changes to permitted dispensing limits.</p><p>Aletta Schutte has received speaker honoraria from Servier, Abbott, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Medtronic, Omron, and Aktiia.</p><p>Anonymous survey data will be available on request, subject to ethics approval.</p><p>Conceptualisation: Carissa Bonner, Emily Atkins, Anthony Rodgers, Aletta Schutte. Data curation: Carissa Bonner, Michael Fajardo, Rachael Keast. Formal analysis: Michael Fajardo. Funding acquisition: Carissa Bonner, Anthony Rodgers, Aletta Schutte. Methodology: all authors. Project administration: Carissa Bonner, Rachael Keast. Writing (draft): Carissa Bonner. Writing (review and editing): all authors.</p><p>Received 2 March 2025, accepted 19 June 2025</p>","PeriodicalId":18214,"journal":{"name":"Medical Journal of Australia","volume":"223 8","pages":"423-425"},"PeriodicalIF":8.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.5694/mja2.70034","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Journal of Australia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.5694/mja2.70034","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Pharmacy-related costs and fees comprise 51% of the total cost of hypertension medications in Australia, largely because of 30-day dispensing periods, increasing out-of-pocket costs for patients.1 In 2022, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) recommended 60- or 90-day dispensing periods for hypertension medications, a proposal supported by the Australian Hypertension Taskforce.2 The World Health Organization recommends 90-day dispensing periods for improving medication adherence and long term blood pressure control.3 The recent move from 30- to 60-day dispensing in Australia to reduce costs4, 5 has been controversial.6

We therefore explored the perspectives of hypertension medication purchasers in Australia to provide information that could inform dispensing policy. We investigated medication dispensing method preferences in an online survey codesigned with community panel members by the Sydney Health Literacy Lab.7 The design phase included iterative discussion, development, testing, and refinement by a group of seven men and women aged 30–85 years with differing cardiovascular risk and medications experience. Forced choice questions that compared different dispensing options were developed (Box 1). Estimated costs for people with or without concession card holders were based on Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) copayment thresholds and prices in May 2024 (Box 2).8

The participants in our survey were members of the Dynata market research panel (https://www.dynata.com), who receive points for completing a survey they could exchange for gift vouchers. Participation was anonymous, but we collected demographic characteristics, medication experience, and dispensing preference information. We used soft quota sampling to ensure diversity with respect to age (over or under 65 years of age), education (with or without university education), and gender (men or women) to recruit a national sample of 2000 adults (18 years or older) currently using blood pressure medications, sufficiently large to facilitate exploratory demographic subgroup analyses (Supporting Information, part 2). The Qualtrics survey (https://www.qualtrics.com) was available for online completion during 27 November 2024 – 21 January 2025. We summarise participant characteristics as descriptive statistics. We assessed the preferred mode of medication collection (pharmacy pickup or postal delivery) when the cost implications of choices were not provided in logistic multivariate regression models adjusted for reaching the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) safety threshold, location (major city or other), preferred medication delivery duration, education level, gender, age, and income; we report adjusted odds ratios (aORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Analyses were undertaken in SPSS 29 (IBM). Free text responses were thematically coded. The University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee approved the study (2024/HE000957).

A total of 2054 people participated in the study; 912 (44%) were aged 65 years or older, 1014 (50%) were women, 1106 (54%) had university education, and 1576 (77%) lived in major cities. Reported weekly income was less than $1250 for 1121 people (55%) (Supporting Information, table 1), 1335 (65%) were concession card holders, and 1044 (51%) usually reached the PBS safety net each year. Systolic blood pressure in the range 130–144 mmHg was reported by 912 people (44%), 145 mmHg or higher by 404 (20%).

When costs implications were not included with the question, 1797 participants (89%) preferred pharmacy pickup and 234 (11%) postal delivery. Preference for pharmacy pickup was associated with not having a university education (aOR, 3.78; 95% CI, 2.57–5.57), not usually reaching the PBS safety net threshold (aOR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.28–2.96), not having a concession card (aOR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.23–3.01), not living in a major city (aOR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.02–2.67), and preference for 30- or 60-day dispensing period (aOR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.64–3.09); it was more likely for men (aOR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.14–2.15) and increased with age (per year: aOR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.02–1.04), and was not influenced by income (aOR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.93–1.05) (Supporting Information, table 2). Reasons provided in open responses for preferring pharmacy pickup included the opportunity for social interaction, exercise, and medical advice, and not trusting postal delivery. Reasons for preferring postal delivery included the time saving and convenience.

When the cost implications of the options were provided with the forced choice questions, most participants preferred pharmacy pickup to postal delivery (choices 1 and 2; 75–83% preferred pharmacy pickup). This pattern applied to people with or without concession cards, and for both 60- and 90-day dispensing periods (Box 2; Supporting Information, figure 1).

When costs implications were not included with the question, 659 participants (32%) preferred 30-day dispensing, 642 (31%) 60-day dispensing, 413 (20%) 90-day dispensing, and 56 (3%) 120-day dispensing. Reasons for preferring shorter dispensing periods (30 or 60 days) included concerns about medicine quality, expiry, storage, and dose changes, and preferring the status quo. Reasons for preferring longer dispensing periods (60 or 120 days) included convenience, ease of remembering, and avoiding running out.

When the cost implications of the options were provided with the forced choice questions, most participants preferred 90-day dispensing to 60-day dispensing (choices 3 and 6; 69–92% preferred 90-day dispensing) and 120-day to 30-day dispensing (choices 4 and 5; 83–92% preferred 120-day dispensing). This pattern applied to people with or without concession cards, and for both delivery modes (pharmacy pickup and postal delivery) (Box 2; Supporting Information, figure 1).

We found that a large majority of people who use hypertension medications prefer in-person pickup at pharmacies to postal delivery, and longer dispensing intervals, when these choices are associated with lower out-of-pocket costs. Preferences differed by both demographic and behavioural factors; some participants, for example, saw broader social and health management benefits in pharmacy pickup. Some participants worried about the reliability of postal delivery methods, while others viewed postal delivery with longer dispensing periods as convenient and timesaving.

Limitations of our study include the use of an online market panel sample that may not be representative of all Australian adults who use hypertension medications. The gender and education characteristics of our participant group were similar to those of the adult Australian population,9 and the age distribution was similar to that for Australian adults with high blood pressure.10

Our survey findings will be used to guide a clinical trial that will investigate whether longer dispensing periods for anti-hypertensive medications affect treatment adherence. They could also inform future decision making, given recent changes to permitted dispensing limits.

Aletta Schutte has received speaker honoraria from Servier, Abbott, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Medtronic, Omron, and Aktiia.

Anonymous survey data will be available on request, subject to ethics approval.

Conceptualisation: Carissa Bonner, Emily Atkins, Anthony Rodgers, Aletta Schutte. Data curation: Carissa Bonner, Michael Fajardo, Rachael Keast. Formal analysis: Michael Fajardo. Funding acquisition: Carissa Bonner, Anthony Rodgers, Aletta Schutte. Methodology: all authors. Project administration: Carissa Bonner, Rachael Keast. Writing (draft): Carissa Bonner. Writing (review and editing): all authors.

Received 2 March 2025, accepted 19 June 2025

Abstract Image

澳大利亚使用降压药的人的给药和配药间隔偏好:一项调查研究。
在澳大利亚,与药房相关的成本和费用占高血压药物总成本的51%,主要是因为30天的配药期,增加了患者的自付费用2022年,药品利益咨询委员会(PBAC)建议高血压药物的配药期为60天或90天,这一建议得到了澳大利亚高血压工作组的支持。2世界卫生组织建议,为提高药物依从性和长期血压控制,配药期为90天最近在澳大利亚,为了降低成本,从30天到60天的分配一直备受争议。因此,我们探讨了澳大利亚高血压药物购买者的观点,为配药政策提供信息。我们与悉尼健康素养实验室的社区小组成员共同设计了一项在线调查,调查了药物分配方法的偏好。7设计阶段包括反复讨论、开发、测试和改进,由7名年龄在30-85岁之间、心血管风险和用药经验不同的男性和女性组成。开发了比较不同配药方案的强制选择问题(框1)。有或没有优惠卡持有人的估计成本是基于2024年5月药品福利计划(PBS)的共同支付门槛和价格(框2)。8我们调查的参与者是Dynata市场研究小组的成员(https://www.dynata.com),他们完成调查后获得积分,可以兑换礼券。参与者是匿名的,但我们收集了人口统计学特征、用药经验和配药偏好信息。我们采用软配额抽样,以确保年龄(65岁以上或65岁以下)、教育(有或没有大学教育)和性别(男性或女性)的多样性,招募了2000名目前使用降压药的成年人(18岁或以上)的全国样本,足够大,可以促进探索性人口亚组分析(支持信息,第2部分)。Qualtrics调查(https://www.qualtrics.com)可在2024年11月27日至2025年1月21日期间在线完成。我们将参与者特征总结为描述性统计。我们评估了在达到药物福利计划(PBS)安全阈值、地点(主要城市或其他)、首选药物递送时间、教育水平、性别、年龄和收入调整后的logistic多元回归模型中未提供选择的成本影响时,首选药物收集模式(药房取药或邮政递送);我们报告了95%置信区间(ci)的校正优势比(aORs)。在SPSS 29 (IBM)中进行分析。自由文本响应按主题编码。悉尼大学人类研究伦理委员会批准了该研究(2024/HE000957)。共有2054人参与了这项研究;912人(44%)年龄在65岁及以上,1014人(50%)为女性,1106人(54%)受过大学教育,1576人(77%)居住在大城市。1121人(55%)每周收入低于1250美元(支持信息,表1),1335人(65%)是优惠卡持有者,1044人(51%)通常每年达到PBS安全网。收缩压在130 - 144mmhg之间的有912人(44%),高于145mmhg的有404人(20%)。当问题不包括成本影响时,1797名参与者(89%)倾向于在药房取货,234名(11%)倾向于邮寄。选择药房接送与以下因素相关:没有大学学历(aOR, 3.78; 95% CI, 2.57-5.57)、通常没有达到PBS安全网阈值(aOR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.28-2.96)、没有优惠卡(aOR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.23-3.01)、不在大城市居住(aOR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.02-2.67)、偏好30或60天的配药期(aOR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.64-3.09);男性更可能(aOR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.14-2.15),并且随着年龄的增长而增加(每年:aOR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.02-1.04),并且不受收入的影响(aOR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.93-1.05)(支持信息,表2)。在公开回复中提供的选择药房取货的原因包括社交互动、锻炼、医疗建议的机会,以及不信任邮政递送。人们喜欢邮寄的原因包括省时和方便。当选项的成本含义与强制选择问题一起提供时,大多数参与者更喜欢药房取货而不是邮政递送(选项1和2;75-83%的人更喜欢药房取货)。这种模式适用于有或没有优惠卡的人,以及60天和90天的发放期(框2;支持信息,图1)。 当问题不包括成本影响时,659名参与者(32%)倾向于30天配药,642名(31%)倾向于60天配药,413名(20%)倾向于90天配药,56名(3%)倾向于120天配药。倾向于较短配药期(30或60天)的原因包括对药品质量、有效期、储存和剂量变化的担忧,以及倾向于现状。选择较长的配药周期(60或120天)的原因包括方便、易于记忆和避免用完。当选项的成本影响与强制选择问题一起提供时,大多数参与者倾向于90天分配到60天分配(选择3和6;69-92%的人倾向于90天分配)和120天到30天分配(选择4和5;83-92%的人倾向于120天分配)。该模式适用于有或没有优惠卡的人,以及两种交付模式(药房提货和邮政交付)(框2;支持信息,图1)。我们发现,当这些选择与较低的自付费用相关时,大多数使用高血压药物的人更喜欢亲自到药店取药,而不是邮政递送,并且配药间隔更长。偏好因人口和行为因素而异;例如,一些参与者看到了药房接送带来的更广泛的社会和健康管理效益。有些嘉宾担心派递方法是否可靠,而另一些嘉宾则认为派递时间较长既方便又省时。我们研究的局限性包括使用在线市场面板样本,可能不能代表所有使用高血压药物的澳大利亚成年人。我们参与组的性别和教育特征与澳大利亚成年人相似,9年龄分布与澳大利亚高血压成年人相似。我们的调查结果将用于指导一项临床试验,该试验将调查抗高血压药物配药时间延长是否会影响治疗依从性。鉴于最近允许的分配限制的变化,它们还可以为未来的决策提供信息。Aletta Schutte获得了施维雅、雅培、赛诺菲、阿斯利康、美敦力、欧姆龙和Aktiia的荣誉演讲嘉宾。匿名调查数据将根据要求提供,但须经伦理批准。概念化:Carissa Bonner, Emily Atkins, Anthony Rodgers, Aletta Schutte。数据管理:Carissa Bonner, Michael Fajardo, Rachael Keast。形式分析:Michael Fajardo。融资收购:Carissa Bonner, Anthony Rodgers, Aletta Schutte。方法:所有作者。项目管理:Carissa Bonner, Rachael Keast。写作(草稿):Carissa Bonner。写作(审编):所有作者。2025年3月2日收,2025年6月19日收
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
Medical Journal of Australia
Medical Journal of Australia 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
5.30%
发文量
410
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Medical Journal of Australia (MJA) stands as Australia's foremost general medical journal, leading the dissemination of high-quality research and commentary to shape health policy and influence medical practices within the country. Under the leadership of Professor Virginia Barbour, the expert editorial team at MJA is dedicated to providing authors with a constructive and collaborative peer-review and publication process. Established in 1914, the MJA has evolved into a modern journal that upholds its founding values, maintaining a commitment to supporting the medical profession by delivering high-quality and pertinent information essential to medical practice.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信