Practical strategies and perceptions from community pharmacists following their experiences with conducting pharmacy practice research: a qualitative content analysis.

OBJECTIVES: While prior research identified barriers to conducting research in community pharmacies, there remains a need to better understand facilitators to ensure successful collaborations between academic researchers and pharmacists. Our objective was to determine the experiences and perspectives of community pharmacists who have recently conducted a pharmacy practice-based research study to gain in-depth understanding of challenges as well as facilitators and identify strategies and solutions. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study involving one-on-one semi-structured telephone interviews with community pharmacists following the completion of a practice-based research study in their pharmacies. Interview transcripts were analysed using inductive content analysis involving open coding, creating categories and abstraction into final themes. KEY FINDINGS: Eleven pharmacists participated in the qualitative interviews. We identified six major themes including: (1) barriers (e.g. time constraints); (2) facilitators (e.g. ideal pharmacy layout); (3) support and resources from academic researchers (e.g. helpfulness of training, easy-to-use study materials); (4) pharmacist-initiated strategies for conducting research (beyond prior suggestions from researchers); (5) suggestions for future pharmacy practice research; and (6) motivation for conducting pharmacy practice research. These findings informed practical strategies targeted at academic researchers and pharmacists, respectively, to facilitate the conduct of research in community pharmacists across various stages of the research process. CONCLUSIONS: Our study adds to better understanding of community pharmacists' perspectives on conducting research and identifies practical solutions that can be readily implemented by academic researchers and pharmacists participating in research.

What are the effects of medication adherence interventions in rheumatic diseases: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Consistent reports of suboptimal treatment adherence among patients with inflammatory arthritis underscore the importance of understanding how adherence can be promoted and supported. Our objectives were to identify and classify adherence interventions; and assess the evidence on the effects of adherence interventions on outcomes of patients with rheumatic diseases. METHODS: We conducted a mapped search of Medline, Embase and International Pharmaceutical Abstract databases to identify studies meeting inclusion criteria of: (1) patient population with inflammatory arthritis; (2) evaluation of an intervention or programme targeting medication adherence directly or indirectly; (3) reporting of one or more measures of medication adherence and disease outcome; (4) publication in English, French or Spanish. For our first objective, we applied a structured framework to classify interventions according target (patient vs provider), focus (educational vs behavioural vs affective), implementation (generalised vs tailored), complexity (single vs multifaceted) and provider. For the second objective, we appraised the evidence of effects of interventions on adherence and disease outcomes. RESULTS: We identified 23 studies reporting adherence interventions that directly or indirectly addressed treatment adherence in rheumatic diseases and further appraised included RCTs. Interventions that were shown to impact adherence outcomes were generally interventions directed at adherence, tailored to patients and delivered by a healthcare provider. For interventions that were not shown to have impacts, reasons may be those related to the intervention itself, patient characteristics or study methodology. CONCLUSIONS: Our systematic review shows limited research on adherence interventions in rheumatic diseases with inconsistent impacts on adherence or disease outcome.

Economics of non-adherence to biologic therapies in rheumatoid arthritis.

Adherence to biologic therapies among patients with rheumatoid arthritis is sub-optimal, with the proportion of adherent patients reported to be as low as 11 %. We found few studies evaluating economic outcomes, including health care costs, associated with non-adherence with biologic therapies. Findings suggest that while higher pharmacy costs drive total health care costs among adherent patients, non-adherent patients incur greater health care utilization including inpatient, outpatient, and laboratory services. Finally, economic factors are important determinants of adherence to biologics in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Evidence to date has shown that higher out-of-pocket payments have a negative association with adherence to biologics. Furthermore, cost-related non-adherence is a highly prevalent problem in rheumatoid arthritis. Given the high costs of biologics and continued expansion of use in rheumatoid arthritis, there is need for more research to understand the economic implications of adherence to these therapies.

Medication adherence in gout: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Recent data suggesting the growing problem of medication nonadherence in gout have called for the need to synthesize the burden, determinants, and impacts of the problem. Our objective was to conduct a systematic review of the literature examining medication adherence among patients with gout in real-world settings. METHODS: We conducted a search of Medline, Embase, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, PsycINFO, and CINAHL databases and selected studies of gout patients and medication adherence in real-world settings. We extracted information on study design, sample size, length of followup, data source (e.g., prescription records versus electronic monitoring versus self-report), type of nonadherence problem evaluated, adherence measures and reported estimates, and determinants of adherence reported in multivariable analyses. RESULTS: We included 16 studies that we categorized according to methods used to measure adherence, including electronic prescription records (n = 10), clinical records (n = 1), electronic monitoring devices (n = 1), and self-report (n = 4). The burden of nonadherence was reported in all studies, and among studies based on electronic prescription records, adherence rates were all below 0.80 and the proportion of adherent patients ranged from 10-46%. Six studies reported on determinants, with older age and having comorbid hypertension consistently shown to be positively associated with better adherence. One study showed the impact of adherence on achieving a serum uric acid target. CONCLUSION: With less than half of gout patients in real-world settings adherent to their treatment, this systematic review highlights the importance of health care professionals discussing adherence to medications during encounters with patients.