RESUMEN
Background: Support programs are provided to people with diabetes to help them manage their disease. However, adherence to and persistence in support programs are often low, making it difficult to demonstrate their effectiveness. Aim: To identify the determinants of patients' perceived interest in diabetes support programs because it may be a powerful determinant of effective participation in such programs. Patients and Methods: An online study conducted in April 2021 in metropolitan France on 600 people with diabetes recruited from a consumer panel. A 64-item psychosocial questionnaire including a question asking to evaluate the helpfulness of a support program was used. Univariate, multivariate, and multiple correspondence analyses were performed. Results: The existence of a typology, known as Unsafe/Safe, was discovered, in which patients with type 2 diabetes respond in two distinct ways. Type U (unsafe) patients, who believe that a support program would be helpful, are more likely to be nonadherent to their treatment, have high hemoglobin A1c levels, have at least one diabetic complication, lack information regarding their disease and treatment, rate the burden of their disease and impairment of their quality of life as high, worry about their future, and are pessimistic. Type S (safe) patients have the opposite characteristics. Type U patients can be dichotomized into two broad classes: one in which they lack information regarding disease and treatment and the other in which alterations in the quality of life and burden of the disease predominate. Insulin-treated patients give more importance to the lack of information, whereas noninsulin-treated patients complain primarily about the burden of the disease and impairment of quality of life. Conclusion: This study describes this new U/S typology, proposes a simple method based on a nine-item questionnaire to identify type U patients by calculating a Program Helpfulness Score described herein, and clarifies the nature of the intervention to be provided to them. This novel approach could be applied to other chronic diseases.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: Some patients make a rational choice not to follow medical prescriptions; others fail to take their medications for reasons beyond their control, such as mere forgetfulness or a weak medication routine. The aim of this study was to elucidate the functioning of patient intentionality in medication adherence. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This online study was conducted in metropolitan France in 2019. A cross-sectional survey of 50 questions was conducted with 3001 respondents diagnosed with diabetes, hypertension, and/or hypercholesterolemia identified from a panel of 54,000 people. These questions included a validated six-item questionnaire to detect nonadherence, two questions to detect intentional nonadherence by patients, and three questions on the effects of habit. Our questionnaire also included questions on the feelings of respondents regarding their doctor's attitude to their problems and needs, their trust in general practitioners (GP) and specialists, their sense of being involved in treatment decisions, and the influence of side effects and habits on patients' adherence. This study used the strategy of focusing on strictly adherent patients in the hope of finding ways to improve adherence. For this reason, we defined adherence as the absence of a positive response to the 6-item nonadherence screening questionnaire. RESULTS: Of 3001 respondents, 1804 were diagnosed with hypertension, 1458 with hypercholesterolemia, and 774 with diabetes. Of the total number of patients, 72% were afflicted with one disease, 21% with two ailments, and 7% with three simultaneous illnesses. One-third (33%) of the patients did not tender a positive answer to the adherence questionnaire and were deemed adherent. 1) Thirty-two percent of the patients reported occasionally omitting their medication deliberately, and 84% said they had a reason for missing doses. These statements suggesting intentional nonadherence were negatively associated with adherence as identified via multivariate analysis (P = 0.0012 and P < 0.0001, for the first and second statement, respectively). 2) Univariate analyses revealed strong associations (P < 0.0001) between strict adherence on one hand and lack of intentional nonadherence, patient age, absence of drug side effects, taking drugs by habit, feeling involved in treatment decisions, getting information about treatment, and disease, and trust in doctors, on the other hand. 3) Specifically, univariate analysis of the absence of reported side effects revealed strong associations (P < 0.0001) with adequate information about medicines and diseases and trust in GP. These original data were consistent with the concept of the nocebo effect. 4) We observed a strong association between the absence of intentional nonadherence (statement of never deliberately missing medication) and respondent statements about generally sticking to the routine (P < 0.0001), ie, "I take my medication because I am used to taking it." This important result suggests that patients are strictly adherent in two ways: the absence of intentional nonadherence and reliance on habit, which we term as "unintentional adherence." 5) Finally, a multiple correspondence analysis illustrated all statistically significant relationships found in this study. CONCLUSION: We present a new global model of adherence in which patient adherence was improved both by reducing intentional nonadherence and by promoting the abovementioned unintentional adherence by habit. This model highlights the role of shared decision-making and the trust felt by patients in their doctors. These results could exert a major impact on medical practice and education by demonstrating the importance of physicians' attitudes, involving the patient in decisions (shared decision-making), offering information about medicines and diseases (patient education), understanding the problems of patients, and taking their needs into account (empathy). The development of these attitudes should be an important aspect of the medical curricula.