Acceptability of a theory-based adherence intervention for adults with asthma - a person-based approach.

Objective: Nonadherence to inhaled corticosteroids contributes to poor asthma control. This study evaluated two different theory-based intervention approaches to address nonadherence in adults with asthma using a person-based, qualitative approach to investigate comprehensibility, coherence and acceptability.Methods: The two intervention approaches addressed treatment beliefs and misconceptions in asthma, aiming to provide a common-sense rationale for medication adherence. Approach one reframed asthma using a concept of balance, the second approach was more traditional presenting medical consequences of nonadherence. We ran three focus group interviews involving 19 adults with asthma to investigate patient acceptability of the intervention approaches and their influence on perceptions of asthma and medication.Results: Approach one was perceived as novel compared to current practice, logical and easily understandable. Its use of non-medical jargon was perceived as representing information more positively, moving away from stigmatizing people with asthma. Approach two was perceived as not sufficiently novel, not applicable to everyone's illness experience and triggering fear.Conclusions: Patient feedback allowed us to refine our intervention strategy prior to running costly feasibility trials. Patient-based approaches for intervention planning may facilitate implementation and acceptability of interventions in practice.

Pharmacists and medication adherence in asthma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The Lancet Asthma Commission highlighted that non-adherence remains a persistent barrier within asthma care. Medical consultations remain pivotal in addressing non-adherence, but interest in additional adherence support from pharmacists is increasing. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate how effective pharmacist-led interventions are in improving medication adherence in adults with asthma.Studies were included if they had adult participants with asthma, pharmacist-led or collaborative care interventions, randomised controlled trial designs comparing interventions with usual pharmacist care, and a medication adherence outcome. We analysed adherence data using the standardised mean difference (d) and the remaining data were synthesised narratively.From 1159 records, 11 were included in the narrative synthesis and nine in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis for adherence produced a medium effect size of d=0.49 (se=0.08, 95% CI 0.35-0.64, p<0.0001) with low statistical heterogeneity.In line with the Perceptions and Practicalities Approach, interventions targeted to address both the perceptions and practicalities that influence individual motivation and ability to adhere were more effective. Contextual factors (country and healthcare setting) were also influential. Our findings suggest that with adequate remuneration and integration into asthma care, pharmacists can help improve adherence in asthma.

Pharmacist-led adherence support in general practice: a qualitative interview study of adults with asthma.

OBJECTIVES: The National Health Service (NHS) in England recently introduced general practice pharmacists (GPPs) to provide medication-focused support to both patients and the general practice team. This healthcare model may benefit people with asthma, who currently receive suboptimal care and demonstrate low medication adherence. This study aimed to explore the perspectives of adults with asthma on the potential for pharmacist-led adherence support delivered in general practice, with a focus on how these perspectives are formed. DESIGN AND SETTING: The study was conducted in the United Kingdom (UK) utilising a qualitative interview methodology. Participants were invited to partake in a telephone-based semistructured interview, followed by an online questionnaire for demographic details and asthma history. Qualitative data were analysed using thematic analysis. PARTICIPANTS: Participants (n=17) were adults with asthma in the UK with a prescription for an inhaled corticosteroid. Participants did not have previous experience with GPPs and were asked to provide their views on a proposed GPP-led service. RESULTS: Participant perspectives of GPPs were determined by trust in pharmacists, perceived gaps in asthma care and the perceived strain on the NHS. Trust was based on pharmacists' perceived clinical competency, established over time, and gauged through a 'benchmarking' process. GPP's fit in current asthma care was assessed based on potential role overlap with other healthcare professionals, continuity of care and medication-related support needs. Participants navigated the NHS based on a perceived hierarchy of healthcare professionals (general practitioners on top, nurses, then pharmacists), and this influenced their perspectives of GPPs. CONCLUSION: While the GPP scheme shows promise based on the perspectives of people with asthma, the identified barriers to optimal patient engagement and service implementation will need to be addressed for the service to be effective.

Patient involvement in questionnaire design: tackling response error and burden.

Questionnaires capture patient perspectives succinctly and at relatively low cost, making them a popular data collection tool for health researchers. However, questionnaire data can be affected by response error and response burden. Patient involvement during questionnaire design can help reduce the effect of response error and burden. This paper describes a novel approach for patient involvement during questionnaire design, combining methods from cognitive interviewing (Think Aloud Tasks) with an open-ended follow-up discussion to collate and act on patient feedback, while also taking account of the common challenges in questionnaire design (i.e. response error and burden). The strengths and limitations of this approach are discussed, and recommendations are made for future use.