Interaction between participants in focus groups with older patients and general practitioners.

Group interaction is put forward as the principal advantage for focus group research, although rarely reported on. The aim of the article is to contribute to the methodological knowledge regarding focus group research by providing an empirical example of the application of the Lehoux, Poland, and Daudelin template suggested for analysis of the interaction in focus groups. The data source was 18 focus groups' performance in Sweden: 12 with older patients and 6 with general practitioners (GPs). GPs found common ground in belonging to the same profession, whereas the older patients, instead of constituting a group in the word's real sense, started just sharing a common focus. We found the template easy to understand and use, except for identifying participants' explicit and implicit purposes for participating. Furthermore, adding an interaction analysis to the content analysis helped us appreciate and clarify the contexts from which these data were created.

Factors associated with multiple medication use in different age groups.

BACKGROUND: Multiple medicine use among elderly persons is likely to be the result of treatment regimens developed over a long period of time. By learning more about how multiple medication use develops, the quality of prescribing may be improved across the adult lifespan. OBJECTIVE: To describe patterns of multiple medicine use in the general Swedish population and its association with sociodemographic, lifestyle, and health status factors. METHODS: Data from a cross-sectional population health survey collected during 2001-2005 from 2816 randomly selected Swedish residents (age 30-75 y; response rate 76%) were analyzed. Multiple medicine use was restricted to prescription drugs and defined as the 75th percentile; that is, the 25% of the study group using the highest number of drugs per individual. RESULTS: Seventy-one percent of the respondents used some kind of drug, 51.5% used one or more prescription drug, 38.4% used one or more over-the-counter (OTC) medication, and 8.3% used one or more herbal preparation. The cutoff amounts defining multiple medicine use were: 2 or more medications for 30- to 49-year-olds, 3 or more for 50- to 64-year-olds, and 5 or more for 65- to 75-year-olds. No association between use of multiple medicines and use of OTC drugs or herbal preparations was found. When drugs were classified into therapeutic subgroups, 76.3% of those aged 30-49 years, 97.9% of those aged 50-64 years, and 100% of those aged 65-75 years were taking a unique combination of drugs. Multivariate analyses showed that diabetes and poor self-rated health were associated with multiple medicine use in all age cohorts. Female sex and hypertension were associated with multiple medicine use among those aged 30-49 and 50-64 years, current smoking among those aged 50-64 years, and obesity among those aged 65-75 years. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple medicine use was associated with morbidity and poor self-rated health across all age groups. The vast majority of users of multiple drugs are taking a unique combination of medications.

"I don't know how many of these [medicines] are necessary.." - a focus group study among elderly users of multiple medicines.

OBJECTIVE: The growing prevalence of multiple medicine use among elderly challenges health care. The aim was to conduct an exploratory study describing multiple medicine use from the elderly patient's perspective. METHODS: Twelve focus groups of 29 men and 30 women 65 years of age or older, using five or more medicines were analysed qualitatively. RESULTS: Initially the participants reported no problems with using multiple medicines; they felt fortunate that medicines existed and kept them alive. However, negative attitudes were also revealed, both similar to those presented in studies on lay experience of medicine-taking and some that appear more specific to users of multiple medicines. The foremost of these was that acceptance of medicines depends on not experiencing adverse effects and worrying whether multiple medicine use is 'good' for the body. Furthermore, participants' perception of their medicines depended on interaction with doctors, i.e. trusting 'good' doctors. CONCLUSION: The participants revealed co-existing accounts of both immediate gratitude and problems with using multiple medicines. Furthermore, the patient-doctor relationship coloured their attitudes towards their medicines. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Importance of the patient-doctor relationship for treatment success is highlighted. Moreover, to be able to capture both accounts of the elderly in this study an appropriate consultation length is needed.

Effects on sick-leave of a multidisciplinary rehabilitation programme for chronic low back, neck or shoulder pain: comparison with usual treatment.

OBJECTIVE: To test the outcome of active multidisciplinary treatment in an outpatient setting upon sick-leave status among patients with neck, shoulder and low back pain. DESIGN: Multidisciplinary treatment was administered to 121 patients (intervention group) over 4 weeks of structured intervention, followed by 8 weeks of less structured consultations. Effects of treatment were compared with usual treatment (control group: n = 97). PATIENTS: All patients were in the chronic stage of pain (average sick-leave: 6 months) with different diagnoses: neck-shoulder pain, low back pain or low back pain with radiating extremity pain. METHOD: The intervention group programme included posture corrections, pain perception, skills to cope with pain, aerobic and fitness-promoting activities and relaxation techniques administered to groups of 8-10 patients. The Local National Insurance Office referred the patients who were diagnosed by general practitioners. A 12-month follow-up by the Local National Insurance Office provided feedback about sick-leave status of all 218 patients. RESULTS: There was a significant treatment difference in proportion taken off the sick list after 12 months (intervention group: 78.5%; control group: 50.5%; p < 0.001). The difference was greater among low back pain (p < 0.001) than among neck-shoulder (p < 0.053) and low back pain with radiating extremity pain (p < 0.031) patients. CONCLUSION: Long-term effects of active multidisciplinary treatment were superior to treatment as usual in all diagnostic groups.

GPs' perceptions of multiple-medicine use in older patients.

RATIONALE, AIM AND OBJECTIVE: Multiple-medicine use (polypharmacy) is a growing problem for older patients, prescribers and health policy makers. The general practitioner (GP) is most often the main professional care provider; hence, improvements of treatment can only be carried out in concordance with GPs. The aim of this study was, therefore, to explore GPs' perspectives of treating older users of multiple medicines, using a qualitative approach. METHOD: Six focus groups, with four private GPs and 27 county-employed GPs, were analysed by using the framework method. RESULTS: In contrast to definitions in most epidemiologic studies, the GPs gave a spontaneous definition of polypharmacy as 'the administration of more medicines than are clinically indicated'. They had problems stating both a cut-off number and which medicines should be included. Clinical practice guidelines were thought of as 'medicine generators', having an ambiguous effect on the GPs, who both trust them and find them difficult to apply. There was a perceived lack of communication between GPs and hospital specialists concerning their patients' medicines, which was further perceived to reduce treatment quality. The influence of patient pressure was acknowledged by the GPs as a factor contributing to the development of multiple-medicine use. CONCLUSIONS: The GPs felt insecure although surrounded by clinical practice guidelines. There is a need for policy makers to appreciate this paradox, as the problem is likely to grow in size and proportion. GPs must be empowered to handle the increasing proportion of older users of multiple medicines with individual agendas, receiving care from multiple specialists.

Asthma/COPD drugs reflecting disease prevalence, patient adherence and persistence.

The aim of this review is to discuss the methodological issues involved in using pharmacy-record databases of drug sales in pharmacoepidemiology and to illustrate the usefulness of such data in estimating disease prevalence, patient adherence and persistence to therapy. Recent studies show that asthma/chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) prevalence increases with age. The volume of acquired asthma/COPD drugs per patient also increases with age and was approximately 2.5-times higher for patients aged 60-69 years compared with patients aged 20-29 years. Despite this, there is a comparatively low interest in asthma/COPD research involving elderly individuals. Published asthma/COPD-prevalence data and drug-treatment-prevalence data correspond reasonably well. Short- as well as long-term studies on drug acquisition indicate that approximately a third of patients have drugs available to cover at least 80% of the prescribed treatment time. Only approximately a tenth of the patients acquired steroids or steroid combinations, corresponding to one daily defined dose per day over a 5-year treatment period. It is probable that asthma/COPD is undertreated in all age groups.