Multiple barriers can influence adherence to antihypertensive medications. The aim of this systematic review was to determine what adherence barriers were included in each instrument and to describe the psychometric properties of the identified surveys. Barriers were characterized using the World Health Organization (WHO) Multidimensional Adherence Model with patient, condition, therapy, socioeconomic, and health care system/team-related barriers. Five databases (Medline, Embase, Health and Psychological Instruments, CINHAL, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts [IPA]) were searched from 1980 to September 2011. Our search identified 1712 citations; 74 articles met inclusion criteria and 51 unique surveys were identified. The Morisky Medication Adherence Scale was the most commonly used survey. Only 20 surveys (39%) have established reliability and validity evidence. According to the WHO Adherence Model domains, patient-related barriers were most commonly addressed, while condition, therapy, and socioeconomic barriers were underrepresented. The complexity of adherence behavior requires robust self-report measurements and the inclusion of barriers relevant to each unique patient population and intervention.

BackgroundIn 2007, Alberta became the first Canadian jurisdiction to grant pharmacists a wide range of prescribing privileges. Our objective was to understand what factors influence pharmacists’ adoption of prescribing using a model for the Diffusion of Innovations in healthcare services.MethodsPharmacists participated in semi-structured telephone interviews to discuss their prescribing practices and explore the facilitators and barriers to implementation. Pharmacists working in community, hospital, PCN, or other settings were selected using a mix of random and purposive sampling. Two investigators independently analyzed each transcript using an Interpretive Description approach to identify themes. Analyses were informed by a model explaining the Diffusion of Innovations in health service organizations.ResultsThirty-eight participants were interviewed. Prescribing behaviours varied from non-adoption through to product, disease, and patient focused use of prescribing. Pharmacists’ adoption of prescribing was dependent on the innovation itself, adopter, system readiness, and communication and influence. Adopting pharmacists viewed prescribing as a legitimization of previous practice and advantageous to instrumental daily tasks. The complexity of knowledge required for prescribing increased respectively in product, disease and patient focused prescribing scenarios. Individual adopters had higher levels of self-efficacy toward prescribing skills. At a system level, pharmacists who were in practice settings that were patient focused were more likely to adopt advanced prescribing practices, over those in product-focused settings. All pharmacists stated that physician relationships impacted their prescribing behaviours and individual pharmacists’ decisions to apply for independent prescribing privileges.ConclusionsDiffusion of Innovations theory was helpful in understanding the multifaceted nature of pharmacists’ adoption of prescribing. The characteristics of the prescribing model itself which legitimized prior practices, the model of practice in a pharmacy setting, and relationships with physicians were prominent influences on pharmacists’ prescribing behaviours.

OBJECTIVE -Despite good evidence and clinical practice guidelines, studies document that treatment of type 2 diabetes is less than optimal. Lack of resources or limited access may put patients in rural communities at particular risk for suboptimal care.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS -We conducted a prospective, before/after study with concurrent controls to assess the effectiveness of a multidisciplinary diabetes outreach service (intervention) for improving the quality of care for rural patients with type 2 diabetes. Our intervention consisted of six monthly visits by a traveling team of specialist physicians, nurses, dieticians, and a pharmacist. The core of this service was specialist-to-rural primary care physician academic group detailing. Two comparable regions in Northern Alberta were randomly allocated to control or intervention. Data were collected before and 6 months after intervention in a representative volunteer sample. The primary outcome was a 10% improvement in any one of the following: blood pressure, total cholesterol, or HbA 1c .RESULTS -Our analysis included 200 intervention and 179 control subjects; 14 subjects were at all three primary outcome targets at baseline. The intervention was associated with a trend toward improvement in primary outcome at 6 months (44% intervention vs. 37% control; odds ratio 1.32, 95% CI 0.87-1.99). The intervention was associated with a significant improvement in blood pressure (42% intervention vs. 25% control, P ϭ 0.004); however, there were only small, nonsignificant changes in cholesterol or HbA 1c . The intervention was associated with a significant increase in satisfaction with diabetes care. Multivariate adjustment for baseline differences between intervention and control subjects did not affect any of the main results.CONCLUSIONS -A diabetes outreach service has the potential to improve the quality of diabetes care for rural patients. Future studies need to involve longer timelines and larger sample sizes.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

The level of compliance with clinical practice guidelines for patients with type 2 diabetes was evaluated in 368 patients from two health regions in rural northern Alberta, Canada. Data were collected from patient interviews, drug histories, physical and laboratory assessments, and a self-report questionnaire to assess clinical status, indicators of diabetes management, and health care utilization. Treatment of three clinical indicators of diabetes--hemoglobin A1c (A1C), blood pressure, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL)--has been shown to reduce the morbidity and mortality associated with type 2 diabetes. Mean +/- SD values for this cohort of patients were as follows: A1C 7.25% +/- 1.54%, blood pressure 131.7 +/- 18.2/76.2 +/- 12.7 mm Hg, and LDL 105.2 +/- 32 mg/dl. Despite these results, only 10.4% of the patients met all three recommended targets for control of glycemia: A1C below 7%, blood pressure below 130/85 mm Hg, and LDL below 100 mg/dl. Of patients not at target levels, 14.4%, 27.5%, and 86.7% reported receiving no therapy for hyperglycemia, hypertension, and dyslipidemia, respectively. Of those taking oral hypoglycemic agents who were not at target levels, only 35% were receiving combination therapy. Of patients at or above LDL target levels, 87% were not receiving any therapy. Only 22% of patients were taking aspirin, although this therapy would be recommended for the entire cohort according to clinical practice guidelines. Despite the availability of proved effective therapies, treatment gaps were present for this cohort of patients.

The authors determined the safety and efficacy of recombinant high-dose interleukin-2 administration in patients with brain metastases. This retrospective review included 1,069 patients with metastatic melanoma or renal cell carcinoma who received high-dose interleukin-2 alone or in combination with other immunotherapy or chemotherapy from July 1985-July 2000. All patients were evaluated for both toxicity and response. Only the first exposure to interleukin-2 was considered. Parameters evaluated among the groups included toxicity profiles, reasons for stopping treatment, number of interleukin-2 doses per cycle, and response to therapy. Three patient groups were compared. Group 1 (n = 27) comprised patients with previously treated brain metastases (surgery or radiation), group 2 (n = 37) comprised patients with untreated brain metastases, and group 3 (n = 1,005) comprised patients without brain metastases. For most comparisons between patients with brain metastases and those without, no significant differences were noted in toxicity profiles or reasons for stopping interleukin-2 therapy. Patients with previously treated brain metastases received fewer interleukin-2 doses per cycle (median, 6.5) than patients with previously untreated brain metastases (median, 7.5) or patients without brain metastases (median, 7.5). Patients with previously treated brain metastases demonstrated an 18.5% overall clinical response to interleukin-2 treatment. However, patients with evaluable (previously untreated) brain metastases had an overall 5.6% response rate, which was less than the 19.8% response rate of patients without brain metastases. Two of thirty-six patients with evaluable brain metastases demonstrated objective regression of intracranial and extracranial disease after receiving interleukin-2. Carefully selected patients with brain metastases can safely receive high-dose interleukin-2, and some can experience a response to treatment at intracranial and extracranial disease sites. Keywords Interleukin; 2; Melanoma; Brain metastases; Safety Metastatic central nervous system lesions are a common complication of malignant disease and represent a significant cause of morbidity and mortality. Brain metastases are detected clinically in 8%-46% of patients with malignant melanoma (1). Brain metastases develop in 8% of patients with cutaneous melanoma as the first site of distant disease, with a subsequent median survival of 5 months that decreases to 1.4 months if extracranial metastatic disease is present (2). The incidence of brain metastases in patients with renal cell carcinoma is 10%-13% (3). Patients with brain metastases have generally been excluded from treatment with