Exploring the Multidimensional Relationship Between Medication Beliefs and Adherence to Medications Among Older Adults Living With Multimorbidity Using Polynomial Regression: An Observational Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: People living with multimorbidity may hold complex beliefs about medicines, potentially influencing adherence. Polynomial regression offers a novel approach to examining the multidimensional relationship between medication beliefs and adherence, overcoming limitations associated with difference scores. PURPOSE: To explore the multidimensional relationship between medication beliefs and adherence among people living with multimorbidity. METHODS: Secondary analysis was conducted using observational data from a cohort of older adults living with ≥2 chronic conditions, recruited from 15 family practices in Ireland in 2010 (n = 812) and followed up in 2012 (n = 515). Medication beliefs were measured with the Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire-Specific. Adherence was assessed with the medication possession ratio using prescription data from the national primary care reimbursement service. Polynomial regression was used to explore the best-fitting multidimensional models for the relationship between (i) beliefs and adherence at baseline, and (ii) beliefs at baseline and adherence at follow-up. RESULTS: Confirmatory polynomial regression rejected the difference-score model, and exploratory polynomial regression indicated quadratic models for both analyses. Reciprocal effects were present in both analyses (slope [Analysis 1]: ß = 0.08, p = .007; slope [Analysis 2]: ß = 0.07, p = .044), indicating that adherence was higher when necessity beliefs were high and concern beliefs were low. Nonreciprocal effects were also present in both analyses (slope [Analysis 1]: ß = 0.05, p = .006; slope [Analysis 2]: ß = 0.04, p = .043), indicating that adherence was higher when both necessity and concern beliefs were high. CONCLUSIONS: Among people living with multimorbidity, there is evidence that the relationship between medication beliefs and adherence is multidimensional. Attempts to support adherence should consider the combined role of necessity and concern beliefs.

When people live with multiple ongoing health conditions, they might have complex beliefs about their prescribed medicines. These beliefs could relate to the perceived necessity of medicines (necessity beliefs) and perceived concerns about medicines (concern beliefs). This study aimed to explore how necessity and concern beliefs, in combination, relate to the extent to which people living with multiple ongoing conditions take their medicines as prescribed. The study analyzed an existing dataset that included 812 older adults recruited via family practice settings in Ireland in 2010. Of these, 515 people were followed up again in 2012. All participants were living with at least two ongoing health conditions. Participants self-reported their medication-related necessity and concern beliefs by completing a questionnaire. Their level of medication taking was calculated using pharmacy records. The results showed that having a combination of high necessity beliefs and low concern beliefs was related to higher levels of medication taking than having a combination of low necessity beliefs and high concern beliefs. Having a combination of high necessity beliefs and high concern beliefs was related to higher levels of medication taking than having a combination of low necessity beliefs and low concern beliefs. Attempts to support patients to take their medicines should consider the combined role of their necessity and concern beliefs on behavior.

Qualitatively exploring the application of the necessity concerns framework to antenatal physical activity.

BACKGROUND: Adherence to physical activity (PA) recommendations during pregnancy is low. A common reason for low adherence is concern of harm to mother and/or baby. The Necessity-Concerns Framework (NCF), is a well-established framework in medicine adherence, however it has not been used to explore adherence to antenatal PA. This study aims to explore (1) what influences pregnant women's PA in the context of the NCF; and (2) if the NCF is an appropriate framework to understand antenatal PA engagement. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 18 pregnant women in the UK and Ireland (mean gestation 27 weeks). Interviews explored beliefs, experiences, perceived necessities and concerns about PA. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic framework analysis. RESULTS: Five themes were identified as influential to antenatal PA: (1) Perceived benefits and necessity of PA, (2) Concerns regarding antenatal PA, (3) Balancing the necessity and concern, (4) Barriers to antenatal PA, (5) Facilitators of antenatal PA. Women described a number of perceived necessities and concerns regarding antenatal PA. These necessities and concerns were described as being consciously balanced, supporting the NCF. However, a number of additional influences (for example, feelings of nausea and lack of advice and knowledge) seemed to impact antenatal PA engagement before women could consider their perceived necessities and concerns around antenatal PA. CONCLUSIONS: The Necessity Concerns Framework is a useful framework to help explain how and why women engage with antenatal PA, more specifically why women do and do not engage in antenatal PA at different times during their pregnancy. However, there are a number of other interpersonal and intrapersonal influences on antenatal PA (e.g. physical symptoms, motivation and time), suggesting the NCF alone may be too simplistic to understand and influence complex behaviour such as antenatal PA.

Beliefs About Medicines Predict Side-Effects of Placebo Modafinil.

BACKGROUND: Patients receiving placebo in clinical trials often report side-effects (nocebo effects), but contributing factors are still poorly understood. PURPOSE: Using a sham trial of the cognition-enhancing "smart pill" Modafinil we tested whether medication beliefs and other psychological factors predicted detection and attribution of symptoms as side-effects to placebo. METHODS: Healthy students (n = 201) completed measures assessing beliefs about medication, perceived sensitivity to medicines, negative affectivity, somatization, and body awareness; 66 were then randomized to receive Deceptive Placebo (told Modafinil-given placebo, 67 to Open Placebo (told placebo-given placebo, and 68 to No Placebo. Memory and attention tasks assessed cognitive enhancement. Nocebo effects were assessed by symptom checklist. RESULTS: More symptoms were reported in the Deceptive Placebo condition (M = 2.65; SD = 2.27) than Open Placebo (M = 1.92; SD = 2.24; Mann-Whitney U = 1,654, z = 2.30, p = .022) or No Placebo (M = 1.68; SD = 1.75, Mann-Whitney U = 1,640, z = 2.74, p = .006). Participants were more likely to attribute symptoms to Modafinil side-effects if they believed pharmaceuticals to be generally harmful (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 1.70, p = .019), had higher perceived sensitivity to medicines (IRR = 1.68, p = .011), stronger concerns about Modafinil (IRR = 2.10, p < .001), and higher negative affectivity (IRR = 2.37, p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Beliefs about medication are potentially modifiable predictors of the nocebo effect. These findings provide insight into side-effect reports to placebo and, potentially, active treatment.

Facilitators and barriers to medication adherence with adjuvant endocrine therapy in women with breast cancer: a structural equation modelling approach.

PURPOSE: To identify a structure to explain the relationship between socio-clinico factors, necessity-concerns beliefs, and perceived barriers to adherence with adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) amongst women with breast cancer. METHODS: Participants were 244 patients with early-stage breast cancer recruited from two tertiary hospitals from May 2015 to December 2018 who completed questionnaires on medication adherence (Simplified Medication Adherence Questionnaire), necessity-concerns beliefs (Beliefs about Medicine Questionnaire), and barriers to adherence (Adherence Starts with Knowledge Questionnaire). Socio-clinico variables were collected via interview and medical records review. Structural equation modelling was applied to examine the relationships between these variables and possible mediating effects of necessity-concerns beliefs on adherence to AET. RESULTS: The median age of the study participants was 61 (range 32-80) years and the median duration on AET was 1.6 (IQR 1.2-2.6) years. Adherence was positively associated with age (ß = 0.145, 95% CI: 0.011 to 0.279, p = 0.034) and negatively associated with barriers (ß = - 0.381, 95% CI: - 0.511 to - 0.251, p < 0.001). There was no effect of Necessity (ß = 0.006, 95% CI: - 0.145 to 0.158, p = 0.933) or Concerns (ß = 0.041, 95% CI: - 0.117 to 0.199, p = 0.614) on adherence. Necessity-concerns beliefs were also not significant mediators in the relationship between socio-clinico factors and medication adherence. CONCLUSIONS: Older age and lower barriers to adherence were associated with higher adherence scores. Necessity-concerns beliefs did not have a significant effect on adherence as majority of the patients identified forgetfulness as a reason for non-adherence.

Developing a model of the determinants of medication nonadherence in older community-dwelling patients.

Medication nonadherence is associated with adverse health outcomes in older populations. The aim of this study was to develop a model that describes the relationship between the determinants of nonadherence, per the World Health Organization (WHO) model of nonadherence and the necessity-concerns framework (NCF) and nonadherence in a cohort of older community-dwelling patients. A retrospective cohort study of 855 community-dwelling patients aged ≥70 years from 15 practices. Medication nonadherence was assessed by (i) medication possession ratio (MPR < 80%) and (ii) the median MPR across all drugs dispensed. Patient questionnaires, interviews, and medical records measured the determinants of nonadherence per the WHO and NCF frameworks. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was undertaken to generate the model of best fit. Two structural equation models (SEM) were developed to evaluate the relationship between the WHO factors, the NCF, and nonadherence (Model 1: MPR < 80%, Model 2: median MPR). The CFA produced a reasonable fit (χ2(113) = 203, p < .001; root mean square error of approximation = 0.03; comparative fit index = 0.98, and weighted root mean square residual = 0.97) and adequate internal consistency (r = .26-.40). SEM analysis (Model 1) showed a significant direct relationship between patient-related (ß = 0.45, p < .01), socioeconomic (ß = 0.20, p < .01), and therapy-related factors (ß = -0.27, p < .01) and nonadherence (MPR < 80%). Similar results were found for Model 2 (median MPR). There was a significant direct relationship between medication concerns (ß = -0.13, p < .01) and nonadherence. Therapy-related (ß = -0.04, p < .05) and patient-related factors (ß = -0.06, p < .05) also had a significant mediating effect on nonadherence through medication concerns. Health care professionals need to address medication concerns and management of adverse effects in older populations to improve adherence and clinical outcomes.

Predictors of nonadherence in children and adolescents with epilepsy: A multimethod assessment approach.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of a standardized tool for adherence measurement in patients with epilepsy. Studies in children with epilepsy have reported adherence in 50-96.5%. The primary objective of this study was to identify predictors of nonadherence to antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) using two different methods in Jordanian children and adolescents with epilepsy. METHODS: Participants included 63 children and adolescents with epilepsy and their primary caregivers. Adherence measures included a subjective approach (using parent and child self-reports via Medication Adherence Report Scale (MARS)) and an objective method (measuring plasma levels of AEDs coupled with the application of population pharmacokinetic models to predict AED concentrations in the children). The Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire (BMQ) was used to examine the association beliefs about medicines with nonadherence in the participating patients. RESULTS: Measuring AEDs in plasma samples captured the highest percentage of nonadherence (36.2%). No significant agreement was found between the AED plasma level method and both the MARS (parent) and MARS (child). The overall nonadherence (combined methods) to AED therapy in children with epilepsy was 44.4%. Logistic regression analysis indicated that children with longer duration of disease were more likely (odds ratio [OR]: 1.54, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.16-2.04) to be classified as nonadherent as were children whose parents have lower AED Necessity scores (OR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.53-0.87) and higher AED Concerns (OR: 1.6, 95% CI: 1.26-2.04) as measured by the BMQ. CONCLUSION: The use of a multimethod approach for assessing adherence increases sensitivity for detection of nonadherence to AEDs. Disease duration and parental necessity beliefs and concerns assessed by the BMQ-specific questionnaire were significant predictors of nonadherence to the AED therapy. The need for the development and implementation of interventions that can be employed to improve adherence within this pediatric population has been highlighted by the high levels of nonadherence identified.

The challenges of assessing patients' medication beliefs: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: An estimated 50% of patients do not take their medication as prescribed, with medication adherence associated with adverse outcomes and higher costs of care. The Necessity-Concerns Framework identified individual's beliefs about their medication as playing a key role in adherence, and UK Clinical Adherence Guidelines recommend eliciting and incorporating individual's perceptions of their medication within the consultation. The Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire (BMQ) is widely used to assess medication beliefs, however, given the condition-specific nature of some self-management regimens, it is unknown whether this tool is able to fully capture beliefs about more complex medication regimens. METHODS: We examined the challenges of assessing medication beliefs using the BMQ in 20 people with a complex relapsing-remitting condition recruited from community sources. Data were collected from people with psoriasis; a patient group characterised by complex medication regimens, which include therapies that are applied topically, phototherapy/photochemotherapy, and therapies that are administered orally or via subcutaneous or intravenous injections. Semi-structured cognitive interviews were undertaken, with responses coded using established schedules and analysed using Content analysis. RESULTS: Individual's beliefs about their condition specific therapies were not accurately captured by the BMQ. Medication beliefs as expressed during 'real-time' completion of the BMQ were underestimated, or failed to be captured, by the corresponding scores given by participants. There was mismatch between the terminology used in the scale and individuals perceptions of their condition and the complexity of its management and treatment outcomes. Currently the BMQ cannot represent beliefs about medicines underuse, even though some individuals with psoriasis viewed access to therapies as overly restrictive. Some the BMQ items were misinterpreted in part due to ambiguous item wording or due to misreading by participants. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to identify general and condition-specific difficulties experienced by individuals completing the BMQ in 'real time'. The main implication of this research is the need to develop condition-specific versions of the BMQ in order that this important instrument can capture the full range of medication beliefs in individuals living with a complex relapsing-remitting condition. Access to condition-specific versions could significantly increase our understanding of beliefs which facilitate or reduce medication adherence.

Natural history, reasons for, and impact of low/non-adherence to medications for osteoporosis in a cohort of community-dwelling older women already established on medication: a 2-year follow-up study.

UNLABELLED: Approximately 15 % of older women on oral medications for osteoporosis could be considered for alternatives including parenteral therapies. Collection of data on socio-demographic/clinical variables is unlikely to be helpful in predicting low/non-adherence. Alternative approaches are needed to identify individuals at risk of low/non-adherence. INTRODUCTION: This study aims to identify individual patient reasons for stopping medications for osteoporosis, and to investigate whether this can be predicted from knowledge about socio-demographic/clinical data, or whether alternative approaches need to be used. METHODS: The Cohort for Skeletal Health in Bristol and Avon (COSHIBA) recruited 3200 older women from South West UK, of whom a proportion were on medications for osteoporosis at baseline. Information on self-reported adherence and reasons for low/non-adherence were collected at 6-monthly intervals over a 2-year period. Data was also collected on potential predictors of and impact of low/non-adherence. RESULTS: Two hundred thirty-three of 3200 (7.3 %) women were on medications for osteoporosis at baseline. Mean length of time on treatment prior to enrolment was 46 months. Of those on osteoporosis medications, 94.9 % were on bisphosphonates; 8.5 % reported low adherence and 21.6 % stopped their medication completely over the 2-year follow-up period. Length of time on medication at baseline did not influence rates of low/non-adherence. Reasons for low/non-adherence to bisphosphonates included side effects (53.9 %), practical reasons such as forgetting to take them (18.0 %) and beliefs about medications (20.5 %). No convincing predictors of low/non-adherence were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 15 % of older women on oral medications for osteoporosis could be considered for alternatives including parenteral therapies. This has important implications for healthcare provision. Collection of data on socio-demographic/clinical variables is unlikely to be helpful in predicting low/non-adherence. Alternative approaches are needed to identify individuals at risk of low/non-adherence to osteoporosis medications.

Adherence to oral bisphosphonates: 30 more minutes in dosing instructions matter.

OBJECTIVES: Low adherence to treatment with bisphosphonates significantly impedes its effectiveness. The objectives were: (1) to compare adherence to oral weekly and monthly bisphosphonates with emphasis on dosing instructions; and (2) to study associations between adherence and beliefs about the bisphosphonate treatment among women ≥ 55 years. METHODS: A multicenter survey was performed in secondary-care patients with osteoporosis. Osteoporosis Specific Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (OS-MMAS), questions on compliance with five dosing instructions and Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire (BMQ) Specific were used. RESULTS: As many as 363 questionnaires (response rate 95%) were analyzed. Respondents (mean age 69 years) were treated with weekly bisphosphonates (37%) or monthly ibandronate (63%). Based on OS-MMAS, 67% of respondents showed high adherence with no differences between the subgroups. Only 44% of respondents were compliant with all dosing instructions. Compliance with dosing instructions concerning time interval (fasting and staying upright) was 71% in weekly and 52% in monthly subgroups, respectively (p < 0.001). Compliance with dosing instructions correlated positively with education (p = 0.009). The mean BMQ necessity score of 18.4 was greater than the mean BMQ concerns score of 13.3. OS-MMAS score correlated with necessity (p = 0.010). Persistence derived from OS-MMAS correlated with both necessity (p = 0.014) and concerns (p = 0.041). CONCLUSION: Despite relatively high adherence to the treatment, most patients do not follow dosing instructions. Reduced bioavailability, particularly of monthly ibandronate, can be expected in clinical practice. Adherence-related outcomes are associated with beliefs about the oral treatment with bisphosphonates.

Understanding patient demand for and use of antibiotics for upper respiratory tract infection: A qualitative application of the Necessity-Concerns Framework in Saudi Arabia.

Background: Reducing antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a priority for public health. Inappropriate patient demand is an important driver of unnecessary antibiotic use. To develop an effective intervention to reduce inappropriate demand for antibiotics in upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs), it is important to identify patient perceptions that influence demand for, and appropriate use of antibiotics. Aim: To identify and describe the beliefs about antibiotics necessity and concerns that patients with URTIs have, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Method: An exploratory qualitative approach was used. One-to-one, face-to-face or telephone semi-structured interviews were conducted with participants recruited using purposive sampling (based on age and gender) from primary healthcare centre in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia were conducted. Only adult patients who currently experience URTIs symptoms and agreed to participate were recruited. Recruitment for interviews continued until data saturation point was reached. The interview guide explored patients' necessity beliefs and concerns about antibiotics, AMR perceptions, and expectations from URTIs consultation. Interview transcripts were coded using QSR NVivo 12 using framework analysis informed by the Necessity-Concerns Framework to identify key motivations driving antibiotic requests and consultations. Results: the study interviewed 32 participants (44% were male, average age was 36.84). Results identified that the patients often relate their personal need for antibiotics when encountering an URTIs symptoms to the type, severity and duration of symptoms. Patients also linked antibiotics with quicker recovery, generally expressing few concerns about antibiotics mainly because of its short duration of use. However, some conveyed their concern about frequent administration of antibiotics and effect on the body's immune system function, which may make them more prone to infections in the future. Participants varied widely in their awareness of AMR; this was associated with many misconceptions, such as confusing AMR with antibiotics efficacy and tolerance. Interestingly, the interplay between necessity beliefs and concerns was observed to influence the decision to start and stop antibiotic, potentially impacting inappropriate antibiotic demand and unnecessary use. Conclusion: This study highlighted important beliefs and misconceptions about antibiotics and AMR in Saudi population which can be targeted in future interventions to reduce inappropriate demand for antibiotics and optimise appropriate usage.

The Role of Medication Beliefs in COVID-19 Vaccine and Booster Uptake in Healthcare Workers: An Exploratory Study.

Illness and medication beliefs have shown to predict COVID-19 vaccination behaviour in the general population, but this relationship has yet to be demonstrated in healthcare staff. This research aimed to explore the potential explanatory value of illness and medication beliefs on the COVID-19 vaccination uptake of a sample of patient-facing healthcare workers (HCWs). A web-based questionnaire-measuring beliefs about vaccinations (the BMQ), perceptions of COVID-19 (the BIPQ), vaccine hesitancy, and vaccine uptake-was targeted to HCWs via social media platforms between May-July 2022. Open text responses allowed participants to provide explanations for any delay in vaccine uptake. A total of 91 participants completed the questionnaire. Most respondents (77.1%, n = 64) had received three doses of the COVID-19 vaccination, and vaccination uptake (number of doses received) was predicted by Vaccine Concerns, Vaccine Hesitancy, and their Necessity-Concerns Differential score. Vaccine Hesitancy was predicted by Necessity, Concerns, and Overuse scores, as well as Necessity-Concerns Differential scores. Delay in Vaccine Uptake could only be predicted for Dose 3 (Booster). Qualitative data revealed that hesitant respondents were "unable to take time off work" for vaccination and that some had concerns over vaccine safety. In conclusion, illness and medication beliefs have potential value in predicting vaccine hesitancy and uptake in healthcare workers. Interventions to improve vaccination uptake in this population should address concerns about vaccine safety and releasing staff for vaccination booster appointments should be prioritised. Future research should further investigate the relationship between illness and medication beliefs and COVID-19 vaccine uptake in a larger sample of healthcare workers.

Medication nonadherence: health impact, prevalence, correlates and interventions.

Nonadherence to medicines is a global problem compromising health and economic outcomes for individuals and society. This article outlines how adherence is defined and measured, and examines the impact, prevalence and determinants of nonadherence. It also discusses how a psychosocial perspective can inform the development of interventions to optimise adherence and presents a series of recommendations for future research to overcome common limitations associated with the medication nonadherence literature. Nonadherence is best understood in terms of the interactions between an individual and a specific disease/treatment, within a social and environmental context. Adherence is a product of motivation and ability. Motivation comprises conscious decision-making processes but also from more 'instinctive', intuitive and habitual processes. Ability comprises the physical and psychological skills needed to adhere. Both motivation and ability are influenced by environmental and social factors which influence the opportunity to adhere as well as triggers or cues to actions which may be internal (e.g. experiencing symptoms) or external (e.g. receiving a reminder). Systematic reviews of adherence interventions show that effective solutions are elusive, partly because few have a strong theoretical basis. Adherence support targeted at the level of individuals will be more effective if it is tailored to address the specific perceptions (e.g. beliefs about illness and treatment) and practicalities (e.g. capability and resources) influencing individuals' motivation and ability to adhere.

Illness and Treatment Perceptions of Patients with Epilepsy Attending Treatment at a Tertiary Hospital in Addis Ababa - A Qualitative Exploration.

BACKGROUND: Epilepsy can be a large economic burden in countries where appropriate treatment is not taken due to religious and psychosocial beliefs. The objective of this study was to explore the perceptions and experiences of patients with epilepsy attending their treatment at Tikur Anbessa Specialized Hospital about their illness and treatment. METHODS: A qualitative exploratory design with an in-depth interview was followed. Fourteen purposively selected patients were used until saturation of key emerging themes was achieved. RESULTS: The finding showed that study participants expressed perceptions towards their illness including about its cause, timeline, severity and psychosocial consequences which at times may be considered different from the biomedical version. They also expressed concerns about their treatment, reported about social and psychological issues and in certain cases dissatisfaction with their healthcare providers. Such issues may have led to delays in treatment-seeking and non-adherence to recommended treatment regimens and as well use of traditional medicine and spiritual healing. On the other hand, reasons that were reported to positively influence their treatment experiences include necessity perceptions about their medications, family support and use of spiritual healing alongside their biomedical treatment. CONCLUSION: The healthcare provision should improve to cater to these groups of patients including instituting chronic care management and appropriate health education provision.

Understanding pregnant women's adherence-related beliefs about Nicotine Replacement Therapy for smoking cessation: A qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: Reducing smoking during pregnancy is a public health priority. Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) is offered routinely to pregnant women who smoke in the United Kingdom. However, evidence of treatment efficacy in this population is weak, most likely due to poor adherence. Guided by the Necessity-Concerns Framework, we conducted a qualitative study to better understand pregnant women's perceived needs and concerns regarding NRT use, with consideration of combination NRT. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted by telephone with 18 pregnant or recently pregnant women in England and Wales, purposively sampled for different NRT-related experiences. Participants were recruited online via Facebook adverts and through a Stop Smoking Service. A hybrid approach of deductive and inductive thematic coding was used for analysis. RESULTS: Findings were organized around three themes: 1) the role of motivation to stop smoking; 2) necessity beliefs about using NRT; and 3) concerns about NRT. Some women reported fluctuating motivation for stopping smoking which undermined their NRT use. Others used NRT to cut down the number of cigarettes they smoked. Reasons for low NRT necessity beliefs included a preference for quitting unassisted, low or unrealistic expectations of efficacy, and overconfidence in achieving cessation (necessity testing). Concerns included safety, particularly around increased nicotine exposure with combination NRT, addictiveness, side effects, and capability to use. CONCLUSION: Pregnant women have multiple necessity beliefs and concerns that influence their use of NRT. Targeting these, alongside increasing and maintaining motivation to quit smoking, will likely help optimize NRT use in pregnancy and improve quit rates.

A Qualitative Study of Factors Influencing Adherence among Pregnant Women Taking Part in a Trial of E-Cigarettes for Smoking Cessation.

Use of e-cigarettes (vaping) has potential to help pregnant women stop smoking. This study explored factors influencing adherence among participants in the vaping arm of the first trial of vaping for smoking cessation in pregnancy. We conducted semi-structured telephone interviews (n = 28) with women at three-months postpartum. Interviews were analysed using thematic analysis, informed by the Theoretical-Domains Framework, Necessity-Concerns Framework and Perceptions and Practicalities Approach. Interviewees generally reported high levels of vaping. We found that: (1) intervention adherence was driven by four necessity beliefs-stopping smoking for the baby, and vaping for harm reduction, smoking cessation or as a last resort; (2) necessity beliefs outweighed vaping concerns, such as dependence and safety; (3) adherence was linked to four practicalities themes, acting as barriers and facilitators to vaping-device and e-liquid perceptions, resources and support, whether vaping became habitual, and social and environmental factors; and (4) intentional non-adherence was rare; unintentional non-adherence was due to device failures, forgetting to vape, and personal circumstances and stress. Pregnant smokers provided with e-cigarettes, and with generally high levels of vaping, had positive beliefs about the necessity of vaping for smoking cessation which outweighed concerns about vaping. Non-adherence was mainly due to unintentional factors.

To Get Vaccinated, or Not to Get Vaccinated, That Is the Question: Illness Representations about COVID-19 and Perceptions about COVID-19 Vaccination as Predictors of COVID-19 Vaccination Willingness among Young Adults in The Netherlands.

Mass vaccination is considered necessary to reduce the spread of COVID-19; however, vaccination willingness was found to be especially low among young adults. Therefore, based on the extended Common Sense Model, the unique effects and the interplay of illness representations about COVID-19 and perceptions about COVID-19 vaccination in explaining COVID-19 vaccination willingness was investigated using a cross-sectional design. An online survey measuring the relevant variables was filled in by 584 participants (69.9% female) between 18 and 34 years. Correlation analyses showed that all illness representation dimensions except from timeline and both dimensions of vaccination perceptions were related to vaccination willingness. The mediation analysis revealed that less personal control, more prevention control, more concerns about COVID-19 as well as more perceived necessity of and fewer concerns about the vaccination were directly related to higher vaccination willingness. Additionally, prevention control was indirectly related to higher vaccination willingness through stronger perceptions of necessity of the vaccination. The extended Common Sense Model proved to be useful in the context of illness prevention. Campaigns to improve vaccination rates should aim at increasing the perception that COVID-19 is preventable through vaccination and the personal need of the vaccination as well as at decreasing concerns about the vaccination.

The impact of theory-based messages on COVID-19 vaccination intentions: a structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: Uptake of vaccination against COVID-19 is key to controlling the pandemic. However, a significant proportion of people report that they do not intend to have a vaccine, often because of concerns they have about vaccine side effects or safety. This study will assess the impact of theory-based messages on COVID-19 vaccination intention, drawing on the Necessity-Concerns framework to address previously reported beliefs and concerns about COVID-19 vaccination, and assess whether hypothesised variables (illness coherence, perceived necessity and concerns) mediate change in vaccination intention. TRIAL DESIGN: Prospective, parallel two-arm, individually randomised (1:1) trial. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged over 18 years, living in Scotland and not vaccinated for COVID-19. A quota sampling approach will be used with the aim of achieving a nationally representative sample on gender, region and ethnic group, with oversampling of individuals with no educational qualifications or with only school-level qualifications. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Intervention: Brief exposure to online text and image-based messages addressing necessity beliefs and concerns about COVID-19 vaccination. Comparator: Brief exposure to online text and image-based messages containing general information about COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccination. MAIN OUTCOMES: Primary outcome: Self-reported intention to receive a vaccine for COVID-19 if invited, immediately post-intervention. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Self-reported COVID-19 illness coherence, perceived necessity of a COVID-19 vaccine and concerns about a COVID-19 vaccine, immediately post-intervention. RANDOMISATION: Quasi-randomisation performed automatically by online survey software, by creating a variable derived from the number of seconds in the minute that the participant initiates the survey. Participants starting the survey at 0-14 or 30-44 seconds in the minute are allocated to the intervention and 15-29 or 45-59 seconds to the comparator. BLINDING (MASKING): Participants will not be blinded to group assignment but will not be informed of the purpose of the study until they have completed the follow-up survey. Investigators will be blinded to allocation as all procedures will be undertaken digitally and remotely without any investigator contact with participants. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMISED (SAMPLE SIZE): A total of 1,094 will be randomised 1:1 into two groups with 547 individuals in each. TRIAL STATUS: Protocol version number 1.0, 26th February 2021. Recruitment status: Not yet recruiting, set to start April 2021 and end April 2021. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04813770 , 24th March 2021. FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.

The 'Necessity-Concerns Framework' as a means of understanding non-adherence by applying polynomial regression in three chronic conditions.

OBJECTIVE: The 'Necessity-Concerns Framework' is an important framework which can support healthcare professionals in targeting patients' medication beliefs and decisions on adherence. Our aim was to determine how the interdependence of 'necessity' and 'concerns' beliefs for medication adherence compares across three chronic conditions. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with asthma, cardiovascular conditions or diabetes attending out-patient clinics completed a self-administered questionnaire. The questionnaire gathered information regarding demographics, medication adherence using the 'Tool for Adherence Behaviour Screening', presence of unused medication in households and medication beliefs using the 'Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire-Specific'. Polynomial regression was applied to determine the multidimensional interdependence of 'necessity' and 'concerns' beliefs for adherence. P-values ≤ 0.05 were taken to be significant. RESULTS: Confirmatory polynomial regression rejected the differential score model in all three groups. For each condition, exploratory polynomial regression found that linear terms indicated the best fitting model for predicting adherence. In all groups, adherence increased as necessity beliefs increased and concerns decreased. Patients suffering from cardiovascular conditions and diabetes with low necessity and low concerns beliefs reported higher medication adherence compared to those with high necessity and high concerns beliefs. DISCUSSION: Alleviating patients' concerns can enhance medication adherence and potentially curb the issue of medication wastage.

Personalised Adherence Support for Maintenance Treatment of Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Tailored Digital Intervention to Change Adherence-related Beliefs and Barriers.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Interventions to improve adherence to medication may be more effective if tailored to the individual, addressing adherence-related beliefs about treatment and overcoming practical barriers to daily use. We evaluated whether an algorithm, tailoring support to address perceptual and practical barriers to adherence, reduced barriers and was acceptable to patients with inflammatory bowel disease [IBD]. METHODS: Participants with IBD, prescribed azathioprine and/or mesalazine, were recruited via patient groups, social media, and hospital clinics and allocated to Intervention or Control Groups. The online intervention comprised messages tailored to address beliefs about IBD and maintenance treatment and to provide advice on overcoming practical difficulties with taking regular medication. The content was personalised to address specific perceptual and practical barriers identified by a pre-screening tool. Validated questionnaires assessed barriers to adherence and related secondary outcomes at baseline and at 1 and 3 months of follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 329 participants were allocated to the Intervention [n = 153] and Control [n = 176] Groups; just under half [46.2%] completed follow-up. At 1 and 3 months, the Intervention Group had significantly fewer concerns about IBD medication [p ≤0.01]; and at three months, fewer doubts about treatment necessity, fewer reported practical barriers, and higher reported adherence [p <0.05]. Relative to controls at follow-up, the Intervention Group were more satisfied with information about IBD medicines, and viewed pharmaceuticals in general more positively. Questionnaires, interviews, and intervention usage indicated that the intervention was acceptable. CONCLUSIONS: Personalised adherence support using a digital algorithm can help patients overcome perceptual barriers [doubts about treatment necessity and medication concerns] and practical barriers to adherence.

The Human Dimension: Putting the Person into Personalised Medicine.

Technological advances enabling us to personalise medical interventions at the biological level must be matched by parallel advances in how we support the informed choices essential to patient and public participation. We cannot take participation for granted. To be truly personalised, medicine must take account of the perceptions and capabilities that shape participation. To do this, we need a better understanding of how people perceive personalised medicine and how they judge its value and risks. To realise the promise of 4P medicine we need to personalise at the psychosocial as well as biological dimension, putting the person into personalised medicine.