No abstract

This study aimed to establish the psychometric properties of a questionnaire measure of patients' adherence to medications to elicit patients' report of medication use in a variety of clinical samples. The reliability and validity were assessed in patients with hypertension. Additional analyses were performed on other patient groups.Methods: Using a cross-sectional study design, a 10-item version of the Medication Adherence Report Scale (©Professor Rob Horne) was piloted in two samples of patients receiving treatment for hypertension (n = 50 + 178), asthma (n = 100) or diabetes (n = 100) at hospital outpatient or community clinics in London and the southeast of England. Following principal components analysis, five items were retained to form MARS-5 (©Professor Rob Horne). Evaluation comprised internal reliability, testretest reliability, criterion-related validity (relationship with blood pressure control) and construct validity (relationship with patients' beliefs about medicines). Results:The MARS-5 demonstrated acceptable reliability (internal and test-retest) and validity (criterion-related and construct validity) in these patient groups. Internal reliability (Cronbach's α) ranged from 0.67 to 0.89 across all patient groups; testretest reliability (Pearson's r) was 0.97 in hypertension. Criterion-related validity was established with more adherent hypertension patients showing better blood-pressure control (χ 2 = 4.24, df = 1, P < .05). Construct validity with beliefs about medicines was demonstrated with higher adherence associated with stronger beliefs in treatment necessity and lower treatment concerns. Conclusions:The MARS-5 performed well on several psychometric indicators in this study. It shows promise as an effective self-report tool for measuring patients' reports of their medication use across a range of health conditions.

No abstract

No abstract

Persistent ill health after acute COVID-19—referred to as long COVID, the post-acute COVID-19 syndrome, or the post-COVID-19 condition—has emerged as a major concern. We undertook an international consensus exercise to identify research priorities with the aim of understanding the long-term effects of acute COVID-19, with a focus on people with pre-existing airways disease and the occurrence of new-onset airways disease and associated symptoms. 202 international experts were invited to submit a minimum of three research ideas. After a two-phase internal review process, a final list of 98 research topics was scored by 48 experts. Patients with pre-existing or post-COVID-19 airways disease contributed to the exercise by weighting selected criteria. The highest-ranked research idea focused on investigation of the relationship between prognostic scores at hospital admission and morbidity at 3 months and 12 months after hospital discharge in patients with and without pre-existing airways disease. High priority was also assigned to comparisons of the prevalence and severity of post-COVID-19 fatigue, sarcopenia, anxiety, depression, and risk of future cardiovascular complications in patients with and without pre-existing airways disease. Our approach has enabled development of a set of priorities that could inform future research studies and funding decisions. This prioritisation process could also be adapted to other, non-respiratory aspects of long COVID.

Abstract. Pharmaceutical prescriptions are core to the treatment of most chronic illnesses, yet only half are taken as prescribed. Despite the high costs of nonadherence to individuals and society, effective adherence-promoting interventions are elusive. This is partly due to the sheer complicity of the issue. There are numerous determinants of adherence, both internal to the patient (intrinsic) and external (extrinsic, e.g., environmental or health system-related factors). Also, the relative importance of these determinants varies between individuals and even within the same individual over time and across treatments, presenting a challenge for intervention design. One complication is that interventions can target several levels: (1) patient (e.g., enhancing motivation and/or ability to adhere), (2) patient-provider interactions (e.g., improving communication and the prescribing process), and (3) the healthcare system (e.g., providing the opportunity to access medication through regulatory approval and co-payment schemes). Here, we focus on level 1: the patient. Although environmental factors are important, the effect of an intervention designed to change them will depend on how they impact on the individual. We describe the Perceptions and Practicalities Approach (PAPA), a pragmatic framework positing that adherence/nonadherence is essentially a produce of individual motivation and ability. Adherence interventions, targeted at any level, will therefore be more effective if tailored to address the perceptions and practicalities underpinning individual motivation and ability. We discuss how PAPA can be operationalized, including the application of theoretical models of illness and treatment representation (Necessity-Concerns Framework and Leventhal’s Common-Sense Model) to address salient adherence-related perceptions.

Background The declaration of COVID-19 a pandemic by the World Health Organization on 11 March 2020 marked the beginning of a global health crisis of an unprecedented nature and scale. The approach taken by countries across the world varied widely, however, the delivery of frontline healthcare was consistently recognised as being central to the pandemic response. This study aimed to identify and explore the issues currently facing pharmacy teams across Commonwealth countries during the COVID-19 pandemic. The study also evaluates pharmacy professionals’ understanding of key knowledge areas from the COVID-19 webinar hosted by the Commonwealth Pharmacists’ Association (CPA). Method A quantitative survey-based approach was adopted, using a 32-item questionnaire developed from the literature on pharmacy and pandemic response. The survey was hosted on Survey Monkey and pilot tested. The final survey was disseminated by CPA member organisations. A 6-item online questionnaire was sent via email to all attendees of CPA's COVID-19 webinar. Descriptive statistics on frequency distributions and percentages were used to analyse the responses. Data were analysed using Microsoft® Excel (2010). Results There were 545 responses from pharmacy professionals across 31/54 Commonwealth countries in Africa, Asia, the Americas, Europe and the Pacific. Majority of the respondents reported being at least somewhat worried (90%) and more than 65% were very worried or extremely about the impact of COVID-19 on them personally and professionally. Nearly two-thirds of respondents stated finding it somewhat difficult or very difficult to work effectively during the pandemic. Challenges mostly faced by pharmacy professionals working remotely included; general anxiety about the impact of COVID-19 on their lives (12%), and difficulties in communicating with their co-workers (12%). Most pharmacy professionals had not previously been actively involved in a global health emergency (82%) nor obtained training on global/public health emergency preparedness (62%). Between 45 and 97% of the COVID-19 webinar attendees provided the correct answers to post-webinar questions, suggesting some improvement in knowledge. Conclusion Our study confirms pharmacy professionals’ concerns about practice during a pandemic and provides preliminary data on the challenges and learning needs of the profession. The CPA has since acted on these findings, providing ongoing opportunities to develop and refine resources for the profession as the pandemic evolves. Pharmacy professionals have also demonstrated improved knowledge on the management of COVID-19 and resources available for professionals.

All devices (N = 16) allowed for monitoring of basic lung function parameters, but only 31% provided in-app videos on how to perform breathing maneuvers. Most devices (63%) provided graphical representations of lung function results, but only 44% gave immediate feedback on the quality of the breathing maneuver. Several devices (25%) were FDA-approved and cost ranged from US$99 to $1390. Information on data security (63%), measurement accuracy (50%), and association with patient outcomes (0%) was commonly limited. This review found that providers' ability to make informed decisions about whether asthma patients may benefit from portable electronic spirometers is limited due to lack of patient outcome data.