Kim K. Hamrosi

Beyond needs and expectations: identifying the barriers and facilitators to written medicine information provision and use in Australia.

Purpose  This study aimed to explore peoples’ needs and expectations of written medicines information (WMI), and to determine the barriers and facilitators experienced or perceived in the context of WMI provision and use.

Enhancing provision of written medicine information in Australia: pharmacist, general practitioner and consumer perceptions of the barriers and facilitators

BackgroundWritten medicine information can play an important role in educating consumers about their medicines. In Australia, standardised, comprehensive written information known as Consumer Medicine Information (CMI) is available for all prescription medicines. CMI is reportedly under-utilised by general practitioners (GPs) and community pharmacists in consultations, despite consumer desire for medicine information. This study aimed to determine consumers’, GPs’ and community pharmacists’ preferences for CMI provision and identify barriers and facilitators to its use.MethodStructured questionnaires were developed and administered to a national sample of Australian consumers (phone survey), community pharmacists and GPs (postal surveys) surrounding utilisation of CMI. Descriptive and comparative analyses were conducted.ResultsHalf of consumers surveyed wanted to receive CMI for their prescription medicine, with spoken information preferable to written medicine information for many consumers and healthcare professionals. GPs and pharmacists remained a preferred source of medicine information for consumers, although package inserts were appealing to many among all three cohorts. Overall pharmacists were the preferred provider of CMI primarily due to their medicine expertise, accessibility and perceived availability. GPs preferred CMI dissemination through both the GP and pharmacist. Some consumers preferred GPs as the provider of medicines information because of their knowledge of the patients’ medicines and/or medical history, regularity of seeing the patient and good relationship with the patient. Common barriers to CMI provision cited included: time constraints, CMI length and perceptions that patients are not interested in receiving CMI. Facilitators to enhance provision included: strategies to increase consumer awareness, longer consultation times and counseling appointments, and improvements to pharmacy software technology and workflow.ConclusionMedicine information is important to consumers, whether as spoken, written or a combination of both. A tailored approach is needed to ascertain individual patient preference for delivery and scope of medicine information desired so that appropriate information is provided. The barriers of time and perceived attitudes of healthcare practitioners present challenges which may be overcome through changes to workplace practices, adoption of identified facilitators, and education about the positive benefits of CMI as a tool to engage and empower patients.

Qualitative study to conceptualise a model of interprofessional collaboration between pharmacists and general practitioners to support patients' adherence to medication

Objectives Pharmacists and general practitioners (GPs) face an increasing expectation to collaborate interprofessionally on a number of healthcare issues, including medication non-adherence. This study aimed to propose a model of interprofessional collaboration within the context of identifying and improving medication non-adherence in primary care. Setting Primary care; Sydney, Australia. Participants 3 focus groups were conducted with pharmacists (n=23) and 3 with GPs (n=22) working in primary care. Primary and secondary outcome measures Qualitative investigation of GP and pharmacist interactions with each other, and specifically around supporting their patients’ medication adherence. Audio-recordings were transcribed verbatim and transcripts thematically analysed using a combination of manual and computer coding. Results 3 themes pertaining to interprofessional collaboration were identified (1) frequency, (2) co-collaborators and (3) nature of communication which included 2 subthemes (method of communication and type of communication). While the frequency of interactions was low, the majority were conducted by telephone. Interactions, especially those conducted face-to-face, were positive. Only a few related to patient non-adherence. The findings are positioned within contemporary collaborative theory and provide an accessible introduction to models of interprofessional collaboration. Conclusions This work highlighted that successful collaboration to improve medication adherence was underpinned by shared paradigmatic perspectives and trust, constructed through regular, face-to-face interactions between pharmacists and GPs.

Consumer Opinions on Existing and Proposed Australian Over-the-Counter Medicine Labeling Strategies in Comparison With the Standardized US Drug Facts Label

Background: With common over-the-counter (OTC) medication use, OTC labels as medicine information sources must be of high quality and usability. Standardized OTC labeling has been proposed in Australia using the Medicine Information Box (MIB), modeled on the US Drug Facts label. However, limited research has explored consumer opinions on existing nonstandardized Australian OTC, US Drug Facts, and proposed MIB labels. Therefore, this study aimed to explore consumer opinions on all 3 groups of OTC labels. Methods: Three focus groups (N = 21 participants) were conducted in Sydney, Australia. Participants were shown existing Australian OTC labels, US Drug Facts labels, and mock MIB formats based on the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration proposal. Discussions were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and thematically analyzed. Results: Participants expressed varying opinions regarding existing nonstandardized Australian OTC labels’ content and design, from acknowledgment of positive aspects (clear headings, relevant content) to decreased perceived readability (suboptimal color use, font size) and content discrepancies. Participants identified key Drug Facts and MIB label characteristics that contributed to perceived usability and format clarity (good headings, black-and-white format). Many preferred the Drug Facts label because of its greater perceived clarity and usability. Missing content (inactive ingredients, further contact details) were identified and consequently became opportunities for MIB improvement. Conclusions: Most participants seemed to prefer the US Drug Facts label, partly because of its perceived completeness. These findings suggest further improvements for the proposed MIB as a step toward Australian OTC label standardization.

Consumer opinions on adverse events associated with medicines and vaccines

Introduction Despite the availability of an Australian consumer adverse event (AE) reporting system for over 50 years, reporting rates remain low. A comprehensive understanding of consumer perceptions and experiences regarding AEs is needed to further ascertain factors impacting their engagement in AE reporting. Aim The aim of this study was to explore consumer opinions about AEs potentially associated with medicines and vaccines, and their experiences and understanding of managing and reporting AEs. Methods Six focus groups were conducted across metropolitan Sydney with a total of 48 adult participants. A semi-structured focus group topic guide was developed to explore consumers’ understanding, experiences, and actions taken in relation to AEs; and perspectives on managing treatment benefits and harms. Discussions were audio-recorded with participant permission and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were thematically analyzed. Results Consumers acknowledged the potential for side effects (SEs), however inaccurately estimated SE risk in response to verbal descriptors such as “common.” Consumer appraisal of treatment benefits and harms was influenced by factors such as medical condition(s), previous experiences, and beliefs. Although many had experienced SEs, consumers only reported them if considered severe or troublesome. Minimal awareness of consumer AE reporting systems was evident. Doctors were the primary avenue for reporting; consumers preferred doctors to act as the intermediary in reporting AEs to an independent body. Conclusion Consumers’ lack of awareness of AE reporting systems was evident. With the complexities inherent in benefit/harm risk appraisal, information seeking, and AE reporting preferences, better consumer understanding of AEs and the systems available for reporting is needed.

Valuing injection frequency and other attributes of type 2 diabetes treatments in Australia: a discrete choice experiment

BackgroundMultiple pharmacotherapy options are available to control blood glucose in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM). Patients and prescribers may have different preferences for T2DM treatment attributes, such as mode and frequency of administration, based on their experiences and beliefs which may impact adherence. As adherence is a pivotal issue in diabetes therapy, it is important to understand what patients value and how they trade-off the risks and benefits of new treatments. This study aims to investigate the key drivers of choice for T2DM treatments, with a focus on injection frequency, and explore patients’ associated willingness-to-pay.MethodsA discrete choice experiment (DCE) was used to present patients with a series of trade-offs between different treatment options, injectable and oral medicines that were made up of 10 differing levels of attributes (frequency and mode of administration, weight change, needle type, storage, nausea, injection site reactions, hypoglycaemic events, instructions with food and cost). A sample of 171 Australian consenting adult T2DM patients, of which 58 were receiving twice-daily injections of exenatide and 113 were on oral glucose-lowering treatments, completed the national online survey. An error components model was used to estimate the relative priority and key drivers of choice patients place on different attributes and to estimate their willingness to pay for new treatments.ResultsInjection frequency, weight change, and nausea were shown to be important attributes for patients receiving injections. Within this cohort, a once-weekly injection generated an additional benefit over a twice-daily injection, equivalent to a weighted total willingness to pay of AUD

Issues with prescribed medications in Aboriginal communities: Aboriginal health workers' perspectives.

22.35 per month.ConclusionsBased on the patient preferences, the importance of frequency of administration and other non-health benefits can be valued. Understanding patient preferences has an important role in health technology assessment, as the identification of the value as well as the importance weighting for each treatment attribute may assist with funding decisions beyond clinical trial outcomes.