A multitude of indirect measures of adherence exist in the literature, however, there is no "gold" standard for measuring adherence to medications. Triangulation of methods increases the validity and reliability of the adherence data collected. To strengthen the adherence data collected and allow for comparison of data, future research and practice interventions should use an internationally accepted, operational standardized definition of medication adherence and clearly describe the medication adherence methods used.
BackgroundIn the past, several authors have attempted to review randomized clinical trials (RCT) evaluating the impact of Patient Information Leaflets (PILs) used during a consultation and draw some general conclusions. However, this proved difficult because the clinical situations, size and quality of RCTs were too heterogeneous to pool relevant data.ObjectiveTo overcome this 30‐year stalemate, we performed a review of reviews and propose general recommendations and suggestions for improving the quality of PILs, how to use them and methods for evaluating them.MethodologyWe searched five databases for reviews, systematic reviews and meta‐analyses describing PILs. We drew general and condition‐linked conclusions concerning the impact of PILs. Checklists summarize criteria for quality PILs, and ways of using and evaluating them.ResultsOf 986 articles found, 24 reviews were pertinent; the five oldest considered the impact of PILs irrespective of the condition the patient consulted for; the 19 more recent ones mostly addressed precise clinical situations.DiscussionWhatever the clinical situation, PILs improve patients' knowledge and satisfaction. For acute conditions, in the short‐term PILs also improve adherence to treatment. For chronic diseases, invasive procedures or screening situations, their impact on adherence varies depending on the context, how the PILs are given and the invasiveness of the intervention.Conclusion
PILs are considered to be very useful, especially for acute conditions where the patient is the first to suffer from lack of information. We propose checklists for writing, designing, using and evaluating PILs in RCTs to enable comparisons between different studies.
The current article details a position statement and recommendations for future research and practice on planning and implementation intentions in health contexts endorsed by the Synergy Expert Group. The Group comprised world-leading researchers in health and social psychology and behavioural medicine who convened to discuss priority issues in planning interventions in health contexts and develop a set of recommendations for future research and practice. The Expert Group adopted a nominal groups approach and voting system to elicit and structure priority issues in planning interventions and implementation intentions research. Fortytwo priority issues identified in initial discussions were further condensed to 18 key issues, including definitions of planning and implementation intentions and 17 priority research areas.Each issue was subjected to voting for consensus among group members and formed the basis of the position statement and recommendations. Specifically, the Expert Group endorsed statements and recommendations in the following areas: generic definition of planning and specific definition of implementation intentions, recommendations for better testing of mechanisms, guidance on testing the effects of moderators of planning interventions, recommendations on the social aspects of planning interventions, identification of the preconditions that moderate effectiveness of planning interventions, and recommendations for research on how people use plans.
Five predictive factors of this SD were identified, which should be assessed in routine with patients with CIRD receiving biologic treatment: pain, treatment history, self-administration of injections, negative beliefs about treatment, and a lack of perceived medical and social support.
Background
Mindfulness‐based programs have been shown to be effective in reducing stress, anxiety, and depression symptoms, and enhancing well‐being. However, it remains unclear whether longer formal mindfulness practices are necessary to obtain such results. We therefore aimed to assess the effectiveness of a program (FOVEA, 8 weeks, 2h/week) which was only based on brief and informal practices.
Methods
Using a switching replication design, participants (N = 139) were assigned to a FOVEA or a wait‐list group, and completed the following self‐report questionnaires online at three time points: perceived stress, anxiety, depression, satisfaction with life (dependent variables), and mindfulness (mediating variable). They also completed a daily practice diary.
Results
Relative to the wait‐list group, FOVEA participants showed significantly reduced perceived stress, anxiety, and depression, and increased satisfaction with life. These changes were completely mediated by increased mindfulness, and were maintained 2.5 months after the end of the program. The effect sizes were moderate to large.
Conclusions
These results underline the potential benefits of a mindfulness informal practices program for the general population. This type of program could constitute a first step towards more formal practices once the motivation to practice has been enhanced by the perceived benefits of brief practices.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.