Sarah Clifford

Patients’ problems with new medication for chronic conditions

Objectives: To assess patients’ adherence to new medication for a chronic condition (and whether non-adherence was intentional), patients’ problems with their medication, and their further information needs. Methods: A longitudinal survey with data collection at 10 days and 4 weeks was performed on 258 patients recruited from 23 community pharmacies in south east England. Patients were eligible to participate if they were starting a new chronic medication and were either 75 years or older or had one of the following chronic conditions: stroke, coronary heart disease, asthma, diabetes, and rheumatoid arthritis. At each time point a semi-structured telephone interview was conducted and a postal questionnaire was sent. Main outcome measures: Self-reported adherence, causes of non-adherence, problems with medication, information needs. Results: Sixty seven (30%) of 226 patients still taking their medication at 10 days and 43 of 171 (25%) still taking their medication at 4 weeks were non-adherent. At 10 days 55% of the non-adherence was unintentional and the remainder was intentional; these proportions were similar at 4 weeks. 138 of 208 (66%) participants still taking their new medication at 10 days reported at least one problem with it. 137 of 226 patients (61%) expressed a substantial and sustained need for further information at 10 days and 88 of 171 (51%) at 4 weeks. Several patients who were adherent or reported no problems at 10 days were non-adherent or had problems at 4 weeks. Conclusions: A significant proportion of patients newly started on a chronic medication quickly become non-adherent, often intentionally so. Many have problems with their medication and information needs. Patients need more support when starting on new medication for a chronic condition and new services may be required to provide this.

Adult ADHD patient experiences of impairment, service provision and clinical management in England: a qualitative study

BackgroundThere is limited evidence of the unmet needs and experiences of adults with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in the published scientific literature. This study aimed to explore the experiences of adults in England with ADHD regarding access to diagnostic and treatment services, ADHD-related impairment and to compare experiences between patients diagnosed during adulthood and childhood.MethodsIn this qualitative study, 30 adults with ADHD were recruited through an ADHD charity (n = 17) and two hospital outpatient clinics for adults with ADHD in England (n = 13). Half of the participants were diagnosed with ADHD during childhood or adolescence and the remainder during adulthood. Semi-structured interviews were conducted and data was analysed using a thematic approach based on Grounded Theory principles.ResultsAnalysis revealed five core themes: ‘An uphill struggle’: the challenge of accessing services, ‘Accumulated Psychosocial Burden and the Impact of ADHD’, ‘Weighing up Costs vs. Benefits of ADHD Pharmacological Treatment’, ‘Value of Non-pharmacological Treatment’ and ‘Barriers to Treatment Adherence’. Accessing services and the challenges associated with securing a definitive diagnosis of ADHD in adulthood was an ‘uphill struggle’, often due to sceptical and negative attitudes towards ADHD by healthcare professionals. ADHD-related impairment had an overwhelmingly chaotic impact on every aspect of patients’ lives and many felt ill equipped to cope. A persistent sense of failure and missed potential from living with the impact of ADHD impairment had led to an accumulated psychosocial burden, especially among those diagnosed from late adolescence onwards. In contrast, positive adjustment was facilitated by a younger age at diagnosis. Although medication was perceived as necessary in alleviating impairment, many felt strongly that by itself, it was inadequate. Additional support in the form of psychological therapies or psycho-education was strongly desired. However, few patients had access to non-pharmacological treatment. In some, medication use was often inadequately monitored with little or no follow-up by healthcare professionals, leading to poor adherence and a sense of abandonment from the healthcare system.ConclusionThe findings suggest that the unmet needs of adults with ADHD are substantial and that there is a wide gap between policy and current practice in England.

Medication adherence and community pharmacy: a review of education, policy and research in England.

Objective The objective of this narrative review was to identify and describe the current policy, education and research related to community pharmacy and medication adherence in England. Methods Medline, Embase, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts and Pharmline were used to search for relevant research articles. Current policy documents were identified via the websites of the Department of Health in England, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, the National Pharmacy Association, the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee and NHS Employers. All pharmacy schools in England were contacted to obtain information about the adherence-related courses they provide to undergraduate and postgraduate pharmacy students. Results National policies and guidelines in England are conducive to an increasing role for community pharmacists to support patients with medication adherence. Many pharmacy schools cover the issue of adherence in their undergraduate and postgraduate courses. Research in this area has tested the effectiveness of pharmacists providing adherence support in the form of compliance aids, education, involvement in discharge planning, and tailored interventions. Conclusion In community pharmacy in England, current policy and funding arrangements suggest there is great scope for pharmacists to support patients with medication adherence. Further research is necessary to identify the most useful, cost-effective and sustainable approach in practice.

Developing the Diagnostic Adherence to Medication Scale (the DAMS) for use in clinical practice.

BackgroundThere is a need for an adherence measure, to monitor adherence services in clinical practice, which can distinguish between different types of non-adherence and measure changes over time. In order to be inclusive of all patients it needs to be able to be administered to both patients and carers and to be suitable for patients taking multiple medications for a range of clinical conditions. A systematic review found that no adherence measure met all these criteria. We therefore wished to develop a theory based adherence scale (the DAMS) and establish its content, face and preliminary construct validity in a primary care population.MethodsThe DAMS (consisting of 6 questions) was developed from theory by a multidisciplinary team and the questions were initially tested in small patient populations. Further to this, patients were recruited when attending a General Practice and interviewed using the DAMS and two other validated self-reported adherence measures, theMorisky-8 and Lu questionnaires. A semi-structured interview was used to explore acceptability and reasons for differences in responses between the DAMS and the other measures. Descriptive data were generated and Spearman rank correlation tests were used to identify associations between the DAMS and the other adherence measures.ResultsOne hundred patients completed the DAMS in an average of 1 minute 28 seconds and reported finding it straightforward to complete. An adherence score could not be calculated for the 4(4%) patients only taking ‘when required’ medication. Thirty six(37.5%) of the remaining patients reported some non-adherence. Adherence ratings of the DAMS were significantly associated with levels of self reported adherence on all other measures Spearman Rho 0.348-0.719, (p < 0.01). Differences in trends could generally be explained by qualitative data.ConclusionThe DAMS has been developed for routine monitoring of adherence in clinical practice. It was acceptable to patients taking single or multiple medication and valid when tested against other adherence measures. However, ‘when required’ medication needs to be excluded. Further tests of the DAMS against objective measures such as MEMS are in progress and reliability needs to be established. Further investigation of the carers’ version of the DAMS is required.