RESUMO
A family health history-based risk assessment is particularly valuable for guiding cancer screening and treatment strategies, yet an optimal implementation depends upon end-users' values and needs. This is not only true prior to disease development, but also for those already affected. The aim of this study is to explore perceptions of the value of knowing one's family health history (FHH)-based risk, experience using a patient-facing FHH tool and the potential of the tool for wider implementation. Twenty multi-ethnic Asian patients undergoing breast cancer treatment in Singapore completed an FHH-based risk assessment. Semi-structured one-on-one interviews were conducted and data were thematically analyzed. All participants were female and slightly more than half were Chinese. The acceptance and usage of an FHH risk assessment tool for cancers and its broader implementation was affected by a perceived importance of personal control over early detection, patient concerns of anxiety for themselves and their families due to risk results, concerns for genetic discrimination, adequacy of follow-up care plans and Asian cultural beliefs toward disease and dying. This study uniquely sheds light on the factors affecting Asian breast cancer patients' perceptions about undergoing an FHH-based risk assessment, which should inform steps for a broader implementation in Asian healthcare systems.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To summarize the available conceptual models for factors contributing to medication adherence based on the World Health Organization (WHO)'s five dimensions of medication adherence via a systematic review, identify the patient groups described in available conceptual models, and present an adaptable conceptual model that describes the factors contributing to medication adherence in the identified patient groups. METHODS: We searched PubMed®, Embase®, CINAHL®, and PsycINFO® for English language articles published from inception until 31 March 2020. Full-text original publications in English that presented theoretical or conceptual models for factors contributing to medication adherence were included. Studies that presented statistical models were excluded. Two authors independently extracted the data. RESULTS: We identified 102 conceptual models, and classified the factors contributing to medication adherence using the WHO's five dimensions of medication adherence, namely patient-related, medication-related, condition-related, healthcare system/healthcare provider-related, and socioeconomic factors. Eight patient groups were identified based on age and disease condition. The most universally addressed factors were patient-related factors. Medication-related, condition-related, healthcare system-related, and socioeconomic factors were represented to various extents depending on the patient group. By systematically examining how the WHO's five dimensions of medication adherence were applied differently across the eight different patient groups, we present a conceptual model that can be adapted to summarize the common factors contributing to medication adherence in different patient groups. CONCLUSION: Our conceptual models can be utilized as a guide for clinicians and researchers in identifying the facilitators and barriers to medication adherence and developing future interventions to improve medication adherence. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO Identifier: CRD42020181316.
Assuntos
Adesão à Medicação , Modelos Teóricos , Humanos , Fatores SocioeconômicosRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Various population segmentation tools have been developed to inform the design of interventions that improve population health. However, there has been little consensus on the core indicators and purposes of population segmentation. The existing frameworks were further limited by their applicability in different practice settings involving stakeholders at all levels. The aim of this study was to generate a comprehensive set of indicators and purposes of population segmentation based on the experience and perspectives of key stakeholders involved in population health. METHODS: We conducted in-depth semi-structured interviews using purposive sampling with key stakeholders (e.g. government officials, healthcare professionals, social service providers, researchers) involved in population health at three distinct levels (micro, meso, macro) in Singapore. The interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Thematic content analysis was undertaken using NVivo 12. RESULTS: A total of 25 interviews were conducted. Eight core indicators (demographic characteristics, economic characteristics, behavioural characteristics, disease state, functional status, organisation of care, psychosocial factors and service needs of patients) and 21 sub-indicators were identified. Age and financial status were commonly stated as important indicators that could potentially be used for population segmentation across three levels of participants. Six intended purposes for population segmentation included improving health outcomes, planning for resource allocation, optimising healthcare utilisation, enhancing psychosocial and behavioural outcomes, strengthening preventive efforts and driving policy changes. There was consensus that planning for resource allocation and improving health outcomes were considered two of the most important purposes for population segmentation. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings shed light on the need for a more person-centric population segmentation framework that incorporates upstream and holistic indicators to be able to measure population health outcomes and to plan for appropriate resource allocation. Core elements of the framework may apply to other healthcare settings and systems responsible for improving population health. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was approved by the SingHealth Institutional Review Board (CIRB Reference number: 2017/2597).
