AIMThe aim was to examine the impact of fee-for-service pharmacist-led medication review on patient outcomes and quantify this according to the type of review undertaken, e.g. adherence support and clinical medication review. METHODSRelevant published studies were identified from Medline, Embase and International Pharmaceutical Abstract databases (from inception to February 2011). Study inclusion criteria were fee-for-service medication review, presence of a control group and pre-specified patient outcomes. Outcomes were grouped into primary (changes in biomarkers, hospitalization, and mortality) and secondary outcomes (medication adherence, economic implications and quality of life). Meta-analyses for primary outcomes were conducted using random effects models and secondary outcomes were summarized using descriptive statistics. RESULTSOf the 135 relevant articles located, 21 studies met the inclusion criteria for primary outcomes and 32 for secondary outcomes. Significant results favouring pharmacists' intervention were found for blood pressure (OR 3.50, 95% CI 1.58, 7.75, P = 0.002) and low density lipoprotein (OR 2.35, 95% CI 1.17, 4.72, P = 0.02). Outcomes on hospitalization (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.39, 1.21, P = 0.19) and mortality (OR 1.50, 95% CI 0.65 to 3.46, P = 0.34) indicated no differences between the groups. On subgroup analysis, clinical medication review (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.26, 0.83, P = 0.01) but not adherence support review (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.59, 1.32, P = 0.54) reduced hospitalization. CONCLUSIONSThe majority of the studies (57.9%) showed improvement in medication adherence. Fee-for-service pharmacist-led medication reviews showed positive benefits on patient outcomes. Interventions that include a clinical review had a significant impact on patient outcomes by attainment of target clinical biomarkers and reduced hospitalization.

Purpose This systematic review aimed to determine the rate and identify correlates of adherence and persistence over five years of treatment with adjuvant endocrine therapy in female breast cancer patients. Methods Relevant articles were identified from Medline, Embase, AMED, PsycINFO, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and APA PsycArticles. Studies that measured patient adherence in the implementation or persistence phase for a period of at least five years using objective or multiple measures of adherence and investigated correlates of adherence were included. The titles, abstracts and full articles were screened and reviewed by two authors and any discrepancies were discussed with a third author. Results Twenty-six studies were included. Mean rate of adherence at five-year for implementation phase was 66.2% (SD = 17.3%), and mean persistence was 66.8% (SD = 14.5%). On average, adherence decreased by 25.5% (SD = 9.3%) from the first to fifth year. Higher rate of adherence was observed through self-report in comparison to database or medical record. Older age, younger age, higher comorbidity index, depression and adverse effects were associated with lower adherence. Treatment with aromatase inhibitors, received chemotherapy, and prior medication use were associated with improved adherence. Conclusion Adherence to adjuvant endocrine therapy decreased from the first to fifth year of treatment. On average, one-third of patients were not adherent to treatment by the fifth year. Nineteen recurring factors were found to be significantly associated with long-term adherence in multiple studies. Further research using objective or multiple measures of adherence are needed to improve validity of results.

Pharmacists should exploit their own strengths and the potential opportunities for these services, and reduce any weaknesses and threats. A possible strategic plan should include increased effective communication, piloting services, and the integration of some services into medical practices.

PurposeTo identify the use pattern of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) and its impact on antiepileptic drug (AED) adherence among patients with epilepsy.MethodPotential studies were identified through a systematic search of Scopus, Science Direct, Google Scholar, and PubMed. The keywords used to identify relevant articles were “adherence,” “AED,” “epilepsy,” “non-adherence,” and “complementary and alternative medicine.” An article was included in the review if the study met the following criteria: 1) conducted in epilepsy patients, 2) conducted in patients aged 18 years and above, 3) conducted in patients prescribed AEDs, and 4) patients’ adherence to AEDs.ResultsA total of 3,330 studies were identified and 30 were included in the final analysis. The review found that the AED non-adherence rate reported in the studies was between 25% and 66%. The percentage of CAM use was found to be between 7.5% and 73.3%. The most common reason for inadequate AED therapy and higher dependence on CAM was the patients’ belief that epilepsy had a spiritual or psychological cause, rather than primarily being a disease of the brain. Other factors for AED non-adherence were forgetfulness, specific beliefs about medications, depression, uncontrolled recent seizures, and frequent medication dosage.ConclusionThe review found a high prevalence of CAM use and non-adherence to AEDs among epilepsy patients. However, a limited number of studies have investigated the association between CAM usage and AED adherence. Future studies may wish to explore the influence of CAM use on AED medication adherence.

Objective: This systematic review aims to investigate the impact of collaborative practice between community pharmacist (CP) and general practitioner (GP) in asthma management. Methods: A systematic search was performed across 10 databases (PubMed, Medline/Ovid, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane central register of controlled trials, PsycARTICLES®, Science Direct, Education Resource Information Centre, PRO-Quest), and grey literature using selected MeSH and key words, such as “community pharmacist”, “general practitioner”, and “medicine use review”. The risk of bias of the included studies was assessed by Cochrane risk of bias tool. All studies reporting any of the clinical, humanistic, and economical outcomes using collaborative practice between CPs and GPs in management of asthma, such as CPs conducting medications reviews, patient referrals or providing education and counseling, were included. Results: A total of 23 studies (six RCTs, four C-RCT, three controlled interventions, seven pre–post, and three case control) were included. In total, 11/14 outcomes were concluded in favor of CP-GP collaborative interventions with different magnitude of effect size. Outcomes, such as asthma severity, asthma control, asthma symptoms, PEFR, SABA usage, hospital visit, adherence, and quality of life (QoL) (Asthma Quality-of-Life Questionnaire [AQLQ]; Living with Asthma Questionnaire [LWAQ]) demonstrated a small effect size (d≥0.2), while inhalation technique, ED visit, and asthma knowledge witnessed medium effect sizes (ES) (d≥0.5). In addition to that, inhalation technique yielded large ES (d≥0.8) in RCTs subgroup analysis. However, three outcomes, FEV, corticosteroids usage, and preventer-to-reliever ratio, did not hold significant ES (d<0.2) and, thus, remain inconclusive. The collaboration was shown to be value for money in the economic studies in narrative synthesis, however, the limited number of studies hinder pooling of data in meta-analysis. Conclusion: The findings from this review established a comprehensive evidence base in support of the positive impact of collaborative practice between CP and GP in the management of asthma.

BackgroundNumerous studies have evaluated the related factors of medication adherence among patients with chronic disease. However, the factors influencing medication adherence and non-adherence among subsidised patients with chronic diseases—for whom medication costs may not be a constraint—remain unexplored. Thus, this study aims to identify and compare the potential factors that may influence subsidised and non-subsidised (i.e., self-paying) patients’ adherence to medication.MethodsSubsidised and self-paying patients were identified at public and private healthcare institutions in three states of Malaysia. Patients were then purposively selected for semi-structured, face-to-face interviews according to their medication adherence status (including adherent and non-adherent patients), which was measured using the Medication Event Monitoring System (MEMS). Adherence was defined as having 80% or more for the percentage of days in which the dose regimen was executed as prescribed. The interview was conducted from January to August 2016 and during the interviews, patients were asked to provide reasons for their medication adherence or non-adherence. The patient interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed using thematic analysis with NVivo 11 software.ResultsThirteen subsidised and 12 self-paying patients were interviewed. The themes found among subsidised and self-paying patients were similar. The factors that influenced adherence to medication include the ‘perceived importance of quality of life’ and ‘perceived benefit or value of the medications’. A unique factor reported by patients in this study included ‘perceived value of the money spent on medications’; more specifically, patients adhered to their medications because they valued the money spent to buy/receive the medications.ConclusionMedication adherence among subsidised and self-paying patients was influenced by many factors, including a unique factor relating to their perceptions of the value of money spent on medications.

PurposeSocial support can positively influence patients’ health outcomes through a number of mechanisms, such as increases in patients’ adherence to medication. Although there have been studies on the influence of social support on medication adherence, these studies were conducted in Western settings, not in Asian settings where cultural and religious orientations may be different. The objective of this study was to assess the effects of cultural orientation and religiosity on social support and its relation to patients’ medication adherence.MethodsThis was a cross-sectional study of patients with chronic diseases in two tertiary hospitals in Selangor, Malaysia. Patients who agreed to participate in the study were asked to answer questions in the following areas: 1) perceived group and higher authority cultural orientations; 2) religiosity: organizational and non-organizational religious activities, and intrinsic religiosity; 3) perceived social support; and 4) self-reported medication adherence. Patients’ medication adherence was modeled using multiple logistic regressions, and only variables with a P-value of <0.25 were included in the analysis.ResultsA total of 300 patients completed the questionnaire, with the exception of 40 participants who did not complete the cultural orientation question. The mean age of the patients was 57.6±13.5. Group cultural orientation, organizational religious activity, non-organizational religious activity, and intrinsic religiosity demonstrated significant associations with patients’ perceived social support (r=0.181, P=0.003; r=0.230, P<0.001; r=0.135, P=0.019; and r=0.156, P=0.007, respectively). In the medication adherence model, only age, duration of treatment, organizational religious activity, and disease type (human immunodeficiency virus) were found to significantly influence patients’ adherence to medications (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.05, P=0.002; OR 0.99, P=0.025; OR 1.19, P=0.038; and OR 9.08, P<0.05, respectively).ConclusionWhen examining religious practice and cultural orientation, social support was not found to have significant influence on patients’ medication adherence. Only age, duration of treatment, organizational religious activity, and disease type (human immunodeficiency virus) had significant influence on patients’ adherence.

BackgroundA previous systematic review reported that increase in patients’ medication cost-sharing reduced patients’ adherence to medication. However, a study among patients with medication subsidies who received medication at no cost found that medication nonadherence was also high. To our knowledge, no study has evaluated the influence of different medication payment schemes on patients’ medication adherence.ObjectiveThis study aims to review research reporting the influence of payment schemes and their association with patients’ medication adherence behavior.MethodsThis study was conducted using systematic review of published articles. Relevant published articles were located through three electronic databases Medline, ProQuest Medical Library, and ScienceDirect since inception to February 2015. Included articles were then reviewed and summarized narratively.ResultsOf the total of 2,683 articles located, 21 were included in the final analysis. There were four types of medication payment schemes reported in the included studies: 1) out-of-pocket expenditure or copayments; 2) drug coverage or insurance benefit; 3) prescription cap; and 4) medication subsidies. Our review found that patients with “lower self-paying constraint” were more likely to adhere to their medication (adherence rate ranged between 28.5% and 94.3%). Surprisingly, the adherence rate among patients who received medication as fully subsidized was similar (rate between 34% and 84.6%) as that of other payment schemes. The studies that evaluated patients with fully subsidized payment scheme found that the medication adherence was poor among patients with nonsevere illness.ConclusionAlthough medication adherence was improved with the reduction of cost-sharing such as lower copayment, higher drug coverage, and prescription cap, patients with full-medication subsidies payment scheme (received medication at no cost) were also found to have poor adherence to their medication. Future studies comparing factors that may influence patients’ adherence to medication among patients who received medication subsidies should be done to develop strategies to overcome medication nonadherence.