药剂师主导的用药依从性和吸入器使用干预对哮喘和慢性阻塞性肺病控制的影响:一项准实验研究。

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Rasaq Adisa, Uyiose F Ufuah, Olusoji M Ige
{"title":"药剂师主导的用药依从性和吸入器使用干预对哮喘和慢性阻塞性肺病控制的影响:一项准实验研究。","authors":"Rasaq Adisa, Uyiose F Ufuah, Olusoji M Ige","doi":"10.1186/s12913-024-11683-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Despite recent advances in the management of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), patients still experience suboptimal disease control largely due to medication non-adherence and inappropriate use of inhaler. This study evaluates the impact of pharmacist-led intervention in medication adherence and inhaler usage on asthma and COPD control among out-patients attending the premier tertiary hospital in Nigeria.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A quasi-experimental study carried-out among eligible out-patients attending pulmonology clinic of University College Hospital, Ibadan. Baseline questionnaire explored medication adherence using a comprehensive-medication-adherence-assessment-scale (CMAAS-12) developed by the study co-investigators, use of pressurized-metered-dose (pMDI) and Diskus inhalers, as well as asthma/COPD control using validated asthma control test (ACT) and COPD assessment test (CAT). Subsequently, patients were allocated into control (n = 65) or intervention group (n = 65) using odd or even number. Intervention group received 2-month follow-up educational and/or cognitive-behavioural interventions to resolve identified adherence barriers, while control group continued with traditional care. Descriptive statistics, Chi-square and Wilcoxon-signed-ranked tests were used for analysis at p < 0.05.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, patients with optimal adherence were 11(18.6%) and 16(27.1%), p = 0.132 (control), but 20(33.3%) and 38(63.3%), p < 0.001 (intervention) at baseline and post-baseline, respectively. Specifically, in the intervention group, the identified adherence barriers at baseline were summarized into knowledge (120;40.4%), practical (115;38.7%) and attitudinal (62;20.9%). Patients with correct use of pMDI were 11(21.6%) baseline and 19(36.5%) post-baseline, p = 0.011 (control), but 13(22.8%) and 46(80.7%) respectively, p < 0.001 (intervention). Correct use of Diskus inhaler were 5(50.0%) and 4(40.0%), p = 0.157 (control), but 7(35.0%) and 14(70.0%), p = 0.025 (intervention) at baseline and post-baseline, respectively. Patients with 'well-controlled asthma' were 25(44.6%) and 26 (47.3%), p = 0.025 (control), but 18(35.3%) and 32(60.4%), p < 0.001 (intervention) at baseline and post-baseline, respectively. The COPD-specific health status indicated that 0(0.0%) and 1(14.3%), p = 0.059 (control), but 0(0.0%) and 7(50.0%), p < 0.001 (intervention) at baseline and post-baseline, respectively, belonged to 'low COPD impact'.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Pharmacist-led intervention significantly enhanced medication adherence and appropriate use of inhaler among the intervention cohort, with subsequent significant improvement in asthma control and reduced COPD impact compared with the control group. This underscores the need for active involvement of pharmacists in collaborative management of patients with chronic respiratory diseases in clinical practice.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT06417931. Retrospectively-registered.</p>","PeriodicalId":9012,"journal":{"name":"BMC Health Services Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11460063/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Impact of pharmacist-led intervention in medication adherence and inhaler usage on asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease control: a quasi-experimental study.\",\"authors\":\"Rasaq Adisa, Uyiose F Ufuah, Olusoji M Ige\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12913-024-11683-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Despite recent advances in the management of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), patients still experience suboptimal disease control largely due to medication non-adherence and inappropriate use of inhaler. This study evaluates the impact of pharmacist-led intervention in medication adherence and inhaler usage on asthma and COPD control among out-patients attending the premier tertiary hospital in Nigeria.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A quasi-experimental study carried-out among eligible out-patients attending pulmonology clinic of University College Hospital, Ibadan. Baseline questionnaire explored medication adherence using a comprehensive-medication-adherence-assessment-scale (CMAAS-12) developed by the study co-investigators, use of pressurized-metered-dose (pMDI) and Diskus inhalers, as well as asthma/COPD control using validated asthma control test (ACT) and COPD assessment test (CAT). Subsequently, patients were allocated into control (n = 65) or intervention group (n = 65) using odd or even number. Intervention group received 2-month follow-up educational and/or cognitive-behavioural interventions to resolve identified adherence barriers, while control group continued with traditional care. Descriptive statistics, Chi-square and Wilcoxon-signed-ranked tests were used for analysis at p < 0.05.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, patients with optimal adherence were 11(18.6%) and 16(27.1%), p = 0.132 (control), but 20(33.3%) and 38(63.3%), p < 0.001 (intervention) at baseline and post-baseline, respectively. Specifically, in the intervention group, the identified adherence barriers at baseline were summarized into knowledge (120;40.4%), practical (115;38.7%) and attitudinal (62;20.9%). Patients with correct use of pMDI were 11(21.6%) baseline and 19(36.5%) post-baseline, p = 0.011 (control), but 13(22.8%) and 46(80.7%) respectively, p < 0.001 (intervention). Correct use of Diskus inhaler were 5(50.0%) and 4(40.0%), p = 0.157 (control), but 7(35.0%) and 14(70.0%), p = 0.025 (intervention) at baseline and post-baseline, respectively. Patients with 'well-controlled asthma' were 25(44.6%) and 26 (47.3%), p = 0.025 (control), but 18(35.3%) and 32(60.4%), p < 0.001 (intervention) at baseline and post-baseline, respectively. The COPD-specific health status indicated that 0(0.0%) and 1(14.3%), p = 0.059 (control), but 0(0.0%) and 7(50.0%), p < 0.001 (intervention) at baseline and post-baseline, respectively, belonged to 'low COPD impact'.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Pharmacist-led intervention significantly enhanced medication adherence and appropriate use of inhaler among the intervention cohort, with subsequent significant improvement in asthma control and reduced COPD impact compared with the control group. This underscores the need for active involvement of pharmacists in collaborative management of patients with chronic respiratory diseases in clinical practice.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT06417931. Retrospectively-registered.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9012,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Health Services Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11460063/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Health Services Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11683-9\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Health Services Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11683-9","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:尽管哮喘和慢性阻塞性肺病(COPD)的治疗取得了最新进展,但患者的病情控制仍未达到最佳状态,这主要是由于不遵医嘱用药和吸入器使用不当造成的。本研究评估了药剂师主导的干预对尼日利亚首屈一指的三级医院门诊患者坚持用药和使用吸入器控制哮喘和慢性阻塞性肺病的影响:在伊巴丹大学学院医院肺科门诊就诊的合格门诊患者中开展了一项准实验研究。基线问卷调查使用研究联合调查员开发的综合用药依从性评估量表(CMAAS-12)了解患者的用药依从性、加压计量吸入器(pMDI)和Diskus吸入器的使用情况,以及使用有效的哮喘控制测试(ACT)和慢性阻塞性肺疾病评估测试(CAT)了解患者的哮喘/慢性阻塞性肺疾病控制情况。随后,患者按单数或双数被分配到对照组(65 人)或干预组(65 人)。干预组接受为期2个月的随访教育和/或认知行为干预,以解决确定的坚持治疗障碍,而对照组则继续接受传统护理。采用描述性统计、Chi-square 和 Wilcoxon-signed-ranked 检验分析 p 结果:总体而言,最佳依从性患者分别为 11 人(18.6%)和 16 人(27.1%),p = 0.132(对照组),但最佳依从性患者分别为 20 人(33.3%)和 38 人(63.3%),p 结论:与对照组相比,药剂师主导的干预措施大大提高了干预组患者的用药依从性和吸入器的合理使用,从而显著改善了哮喘控制,并降低了慢性阻塞性肺病的影响。这强调了在临床实践中药剂师积极参与慢性呼吸系统疾病患者合作管理的必要性:试验注册:ClinicalTrials.gov identifier:试验注册:ClinicalTrials.gov标识符:NCT06417931。回顾性注册。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Impact of pharmacist-led intervention in medication adherence and inhaler usage on asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease control: a quasi-experimental study.

Background: Despite recent advances in the management of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), patients still experience suboptimal disease control largely due to medication non-adherence and inappropriate use of inhaler. This study evaluates the impact of pharmacist-led intervention in medication adherence and inhaler usage on asthma and COPD control among out-patients attending the premier tertiary hospital in Nigeria.

Method: A quasi-experimental study carried-out among eligible out-patients attending pulmonology clinic of University College Hospital, Ibadan. Baseline questionnaire explored medication adherence using a comprehensive-medication-adherence-assessment-scale (CMAAS-12) developed by the study co-investigators, use of pressurized-metered-dose (pMDI) and Diskus inhalers, as well as asthma/COPD control using validated asthma control test (ACT) and COPD assessment test (CAT). Subsequently, patients were allocated into control (n = 65) or intervention group (n = 65) using odd or even number. Intervention group received 2-month follow-up educational and/or cognitive-behavioural interventions to resolve identified adherence barriers, while control group continued with traditional care. Descriptive statistics, Chi-square and Wilcoxon-signed-ranked tests were used for analysis at p < 0.05.

Results: Overall, patients with optimal adherence were 11(18.6%) and 16(27.1%), p = 0.132 (control), but 20(33.3%) and 38(63.3%), p < 0.001 (intervention) at baseline and post-baseline, respectively. Specifically, in the intervention group, the identified adherence barriers at baseline were summarized into knowledge (120;40.4%), practical (115;38.7%) and attitudinal (62;20.9%). Patients with correct use of pMDI were 11(21.6%) baseline and 19(36.5%) post-baseline, p = 0.011 (control), but 13(22.8%) and 46(80.7%) respectively, p < 0.001 (intervention). Correct use of Diskus inhaler were 5(50.0%) and 4(40.0%), p = 0.157 (control), but 7(35.0%) and 14(70.0%), p = 0.025 (intervention) at baseline and post-baseline, respectively. Patients with 'well-controlled asthma' were 25(44.6%) and 26 (47.3%), p = 0.025 (control), but 18(35.3%) and 32(60.4%), p < 0.001 (intervention) at baseline and post-baseline, respectively. The COPD-specific health status indicated that 0(0.0%) and 1(14.3%), p = 0.059 (control), but 0(0.0%) and 7(50.0%), p < 0.001 (intervention) at baseline and post-baseline, respectively, belonged to 'low COPD impact'.

Conclusion: Pharmacist-led intervention significantly enhanced medication adherence and appropriate use of inhaler among the intervention cohort, with subsequent significant improvement in asthma control and reduced COPD impact compared with the control group. This underscores the need for active involvement of pharmacists in collaborative management of patients with chronic respiratory diseases in clinical practice.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT06417931. Retrospectively-registered.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Health Services Research
BMC Health Services Research 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
7.10%
发文量
1372
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: BMC Health Services Research is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of health services research, including delivery of care, management of health services, assessment of healthcare needs, measurement of outcomes, allocation of healthcare resources, evaluation of different health markets and health services organizations, international comparative analysis of health systems, health economics and the impact of health policies and regulations.
×
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