Communication skills-based training about medication switch encounters: pharmacy staff and patients' experiences.

BACKGROUND: Non-medical medication switches can lead to difficult conversations. To support pharmacy staff, a communication training has been developed based on two strategies: 'positive message framing' to emphasize positive elements of the message and 'breaking bad news model' to break the news immediately and address emotions. AIM: To assess how patients and trained pharmacy staff experience the application of communication strategies for non-medical medication switch conversations and which are barriers and facilitators for the application. METHOD: The Kirkpatrick training evaluation model, level 3 'behavior', including barriers and facilitators and 4 'results' was used. Trained pharmacy staff registered switch conversation characteristics and asked patients to complete a questionnaire. Semi-structured interviews with trained pharmacy staff members were conducted. Quantitative data were analyzed descriptively and interview data were analyzed thematically. RESULTS: Of the 39 trained pharmacy staff members, 21 registered characteristics of 71 conversations and 13 were interviewed; 31 patients completed questionnaires. Level 3: trained pharmacy staff self-reported they applied aspects of the strategies, though indicated this was not yet a standard process. Interviewees indicated signs of increased patient contact and job satisfaction. Time, face-to-face conversations and colleague support were facilitators. Level 4: pharmacy staff members were satisfied with most switch conversations (89%), particularly with addressing emotions (74%). Patients were (very) positive (77%) about the communication, particularly about clear explanations about the switch. CONCLUSION: Pharmacy staff's learned behavior includes being able to apply aspects of the strategies. The training results show first signs of better patient-pharmacy staff relationships and increased job satisfaction.

Adoption of new medicines in primary care: A comparison between the uptake of new oral anticoagulants and diabetes medicines.

AIMS: To gain insight in the uptake and practice variation in the prescription of 2 new medicine groups for common conditions in primary care (direct-acting oral anticoagulants [DOACs] and incretin-based therapies) from introduction, around 2007, to 2019 and the correlation between the adoption of those medicines in primary care. METHODS: Prescription data from general practices in the Dutch Nivel Primary Care Database from 2007 to 2019 were used. The percentage of patients with prescriptions for DOACs of all patients with prescriptions for DOACs and vitamin K antagonists was calculated per practice per year, as was the percentage of patients prescribed incretin-based therapies as a proportion of all patients with diabetes medication. Multilevel models were used to estimate practice variation for DOACs and incretin-based therapies, expressed as intraclass correlation coefficients. Linear regression analysis was used to study the association between the prescription of DOACs and incretin-based therapies. RESULTS: Per year, 46-424 general practices and 179 933-1 654 376 patients were included. In 2019, the mean percentage of patients per practice using DOACs or incretin-based therapies was 54.9 and 9.7%, respectively. The intraclass correlation coefficient decreased from 0.75 to 0.024 for DOACs and from 0.33 to 0.074 for incretin-based medicines during the study period. No clear correlation was found between the prescription of DOACs and incretin-based therapies. CONCLUSION: DOACs and incretin-based therapies have different adoption profiles and practice variation is large, especially in the years before these medicines were introduced in guidelines. Early adopters of both medicine classes differ.

Factors Associated with Patient Trust in the Pharmacy Team: Findings from a Mixed Method Study Involving Patients with Asthma & COPD.

Purpose: The pharmacy team has been shifting its role from primarily dispensing medications to providing patient-centred pharmaceutical care. Establishing a trust relation between the pharmacy team and their patients is fundamental for this new role. This study aimed to (i) identify the level of trust in the pharmacy team among patients with asthma and/or COPD, (ii) assess whether the level of trust patients have in pharmacists differs from their trust in pharmacy technicians, and (iii) identify factors that contribute to building trust in the pharmacy team. Patients and Methods: First, a focus group with six patients with asthma and/or COPD was conducted to explore which aspects they considered significant for establishing trust in the pharmacy team. Subsequently, these insights were used to develop an online questionnaire. A link to the online questionnaire was distributed among patients with asthma and/or COPD. Data were analysed using exploratory factor analyses to identify underlying constructs for trust. Regression analyses were conducted to evaluate whether these constructs affected trust (scale 1-10) in the pharmacy team. Results: A total of 290 patients completed the questionnaire. On average, they rated their trust in the pharmacy team with a score of 7.4 out of 10 (SD: 1.5), almost identical to their trust in the pharmacist and pharmacy technician. Patient trust in pharmacy teams is influenced by their perception of engagement, expertise in medication-related matters, and effective communication. Conclusion: Trust in the pharmacy team was observed as moderately high, indicating that there is room for improvement. Due to the changing role of the pharmacy team, its members should strive to enhance their patient-centred skills ensuring ongoing efforts to build and maintain trust with patients.

Shared decision making and medication adherence in patients with COPD and/or asthma: the ANANAS study.

Background: Medication adherence to inhalation medication is suboptimal in patients with COPD and asthma. Shared decision making (SDM) is proposed as an intervention to improve medication adherence. Despite its wide promotion, evidence of SDM's association with greater medication adherence is scarce. Also, it is unknown to what degree patients presently experience SDM and how it is associated with medication adherence. Objective: To (i) assess the level of SDM and (ii) medication adherence, (iii) explore the relation between SDM and medication adherence and iv) investigate possible underlying mechanisms. Methods: Cross-sectional observational study. A survey was distributed among Dutch patients with COPD and/or asthma using inhaled medication. Medication adherence was measured using the Test of Adherence to Inhalers (TAI-10), and SDM by the 9-item Shared Decision-Making questionnaire (SMD-Q-9). Feeling of competence, relatedness and feeling of autonomy from the Self-Determination Theory (SDT) were considered as possible mechanisms. The primary outcome was adherence. Results: A total of 396 patients with complete information on relevant covariates were included. Mean SDM-Q-9 score was 26.7 (SD 12.1, range 0-45) and complete adherence was 41.2%. The odds ratio for the association of SDM with adherence was 1.01 (95% CI: 0.99, 1.02). This only changed minimally when adjusted for mediators (mediating effect <3%). Conclusion: The patient experienced level of SDM in daily practice and medication adherence have room for improvement. No association between SDM and medication adherence was observed. Factors related to feeling of competence, relatedness and feeling of autonomy did not meaningfully explain this finding.

Preferences of Patients With Musculoskeletal Disorders Regarding the Timing and Channel of eHealth and Factors Influencing Its Use: Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Implementation of eHealth is progressing slowly. In-depth insight into patients' preferences and needs regarding eHealth might improve its use. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to describe when patients want to use eHealth, how patients want to communicate and receive information digitally, and what factors influence the use of eHealth in clinical practice. METHODS: A multimethod study was conducted. Two meetings of ~5.5 hours with plenary information sessions and focus groups were held with 22 patients from the rheumatology, orthopedics, and rehabilitation departments of a Dutch hospital specialized in musculoskeletal disorders. Assignments were performed during the focus groups in which qualitative (eg, semistructured interview questions) and quantitative (ie, voting and ranking factors) data were collected. RESULTS: The way patients want to use eHealth varies between patients and moments of a patient's care pathway. Patients' digital channel preferences depended on the need for interaction with a health care provider (HCP). The interaction need is in turn influenced by the degree to which information or communication is specific to an individual patient and leads to consequences for the patient. The 5 most important factors influencing the use of eHealth were access to medical information (eg, electronic health records), perceived control over disease management, correctness and completeness of information, data security, and access to information or an HCP at any time. The 5 least important factors influencing eHealth use were help with using digital devices, having internet or equipment, digital skills, attitude or emotions toward eHealth, and societal benefits. CONCLUSIONS: Patients identified opportunities for using eHealth during all moments of their care pathway. However, preferences for eHealth varied between patients and phases in the care pathway. As a consequence, eHealth should be tailored to fit individual patients' preferences but also the need for interaction regarding different topics by offering a variety of digital channels with a gradient of interaction possibilities. Furthermore, digital skills and access to the internet might become less important to focus on in the future. Improving eHealth use by patients may be achieved by providing patients access to correct and safe (medical) information and more control over their care.

Implementing medication adherence interventions in four Dutch living labs; context matters.

BACKGROUND: Despite the abundant availability of effective medication adherence interventions, uptake of these interventions into routine care often lacks. Examples of effective medication adherence interventions include telephone counseling, consult preparation and the teach-back method. Assessing context is an important step in understanding implementation success of interventions, but context is often not reported or only moderately described. This study aims to describe context-specific characteristics in four living labs prior to the implementation of evidence-based interventions aiming to improve medication adherence. METHODS: A qualitative study was conducted within four living labs using individual interviews (n = 12) and focus groups (n = 4) with project leaders and involved healthcare providers. The four living labs are multidisciplinary collaboratives that are early adopters of medication adherence interventions in the Dutch primary care system. Context is defined as the environment or setting in which the proposed change is to be implemented. Interview topics to assess context were formulated based on the 'inner setting' and 'outer setting' domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were deductively analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 39 community pharmacists, pharmacy technicians, general practitioners and a home care employee participated in the (focus group) interviews. All four living labs proved to be pharmacy-driven and characterized by a high regard for innovation by staff members, a positive implementation climate, high levels of leadership engagement and high compatibility between the living labs and the interventions. Two living labs were larger in size and characterized by more formal communication. Two living labs were characterized by higher levels of cosmopolitanism which resulted in more adaptable interventions. Worries about external policy, most notably lack of reimbursement for sustainment and upscaling of the interventions, were shared among all living labs. CONCLUSIONS: Contextual characteristics of four living labs that are early adopters of medication adherence interventions provide detailed examples of a positive implementation setting. These can be used to inform dissemination of medication adherence interventions in settings less experienced in implementing medication adherence interventions.

The impact of trust in healthcare and medication, and beliefs about medication on medication adherence in a Dutch medication-using population.

INTRODUCTION: Trust in healthcare and medication, defined as feelings of reassurance and confidence in the healthcare system or medication, may be a key prerequisite before engaging in the use of medication. However, earlier studies have focussed on beliefs about medication rather than trust as predictors of medication adherence. This study therefore aims to simultaneously explore the relationship of trust in healthcare, medication and beliefs about medication, with medication adherence. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study, an online questionnaire was sent out to 1500 members of the Dutch Health Care Consumer Panel of Nivel in November 2018. Respondents were asked to grade their level of trust in healthcare and medication (scale 1-10). The Beliefs About Medicines Questionnaire (BMQ) for general and specific medication beliefs was used to address beliefs, the Medication Adherence Report Scale (MARS-5) to measure medication adherence. Data were analysed using structural equation modelling (SEM) with a backward stepwise approach. Out of 753 people that completed the questionnaire, 407 people used prescription medication and were included in the analyses. RESULTS: A positive association between trust in medication and medication adherence was found (0.044, p < 0.05). BMQ subscales Overuse (-0.083, p < 0.05), Necessity (0.075, p < 0.05) and Concerns (-0.134, p < 0.01) related with medication adherence. BMQ subscale Harm did not relate to medication adherence. CONCLUSION: Trust in medication and beliefs about medication were both individually associated with medication adherence. Healthcare providers should therefore not only focus on patients' medication beliefs, but also on strengthening patients' trust in medication to improve medication adherence.

Marketing of medicines in primary care: An analysis of direct marketing mailings and advertisements.

INTRODUCTION: Marketing materials from pharmaceutical companies attempt to create a positive image of marketed, often new, medicines. To gain more insight in strategies pharmaceutical companies use to influence primary care practitioners' attitudes towards marketed medicines, we investigated the use of persuasion strategies in direct marketing mailings and advertisements from pharmaceutical companies sent to general practitioners. METHODS: General practitioners in the Netherlands were recruited to collect all direct marketing mailings, meaning all leaflets, letters and other information sent by pharmaceutical industries to the practice during one month (June 2022). Direct marketing mailings and advertisements in collected medical journals concerning medicines or diseases (together called marketing materials) were analysed according to presence of one of the seven common persuasion strategies, i.e. reciprocity, consistency/commitment, social proof, liking, authority, scarcity and unity; as well as marketed medicine and year of introduction. RESULTS: Twenty general practices collected 68 unique marketing materials concerning 37 different medicines. Direct factor Xa inhibitors (n = 12), glucagon-like peptide-1 analogues (n = 5) and sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (n = 4) were the most frequently marketed medicines. The median year of introduction of all marketed medicines was 2012. All seven persuasion strategies were identified, with liking (64.7% of all materials) and authority (29.4%) as most prominent strategies, followed by social proof (17.6%), unity (14.7%), scarcity (13.2%), reciprocity (11.8%) and consistency/commitment (2.9%). In addition to those strategies, we identified emotional pressure (30.9%) as one commonly used new strategy. CONCLUSION: Marketing materials sent to general practices use a wide range of persuasion strategies in an attempt to influence prescription behaviour. Primary care practitioners should be aware of these mechanisms through which pharmaceutical companies try to influence their attitudes towards new medicines.

Nivel Corona Cohort: A description of the cohort and methodology used for combining general practice electronic records with patient reported outcomes to study impact of a COVID-19 infection.

AIM: A population-based COVID-19 cohort was set up in the Netherlands to gain comprehensive insight in the short- and long-term effects of COVID-19 in the general population. The present study aims to describe the methodology and infrastructure used to recruit individuals with COVID-19, and the representativeness of the population-based cohort. The second aim was to characterize the population by description of their symptoms and health care usage during the acute COVID-19 phase. METHOD: The starting point of the set-up of the cohort was to recruit participants in routinely recorded, general practice electronic health records (EHR) data, which are sent to the Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research Primary Care Database (Nivel-PCD) on a weekly basis. Patients registered with COVID-19 were flagged in the Nivel-PCD based on their COVID-19 diagnoses. Flagged patients were invited for participation by their general practitioner via a trusted third party. Participating patients received a series of four questionnaires over the duration of one year allowing for a combination of data from patient reported outcomes and EHRs. RESULTS: In this study, results from the first questionnaire are used. The Nivel Corona Cohort consists of 442 participants and is population-based, containing a complete image of severity of symptoms from patients with none or hardly any symptoms to those who were hospitalized due to the COVID-19. The five most prevalent symptoms during the acute COVID-19 phase were fatigue (90.5%), reduced condition (88.2%), coughing/sneezing/stuffy nose (79.3%), headache (75.4%), and myalgia (66.7%). CONCLUSION: The population-based Nivel Corona Cohort provides ample opportunities for future studies to gain comprehensive insight in the short- and long-term effects of COVID-19 by combining patients' perspectives and clinical parameters via the EHRs within a long-term follow-up of the cohort.

Exploration of the effects of an innovative mentalization-based training on patient-centered communication skills of pharmacy staff: A video-observation study.

OBJECTIVE: To explore whether a mentalization-based communication training for pharmacy staff impacts their ability to elicit and recognize patients' implicit and explicit medication related needs and concerns. METHODS: A single-arm intervention pilot study was conducted, in which pre-post video-recordings of pharmacy counter-conversations on dispensed-medication (N = 50 and N = 34, respectively; pharmacy staff: N = 22) were coded. Outcome measures included: detecting needs and concerns, and implicitly and explicitly eliciting and recognizing them. Descriptive statistics and a multi-level logistic regression were conducted. Excerpts of videos with needs or concerns were analyzed thematically on mentalizing attitude aspects. RESULTS: Indications show that patients more often express their concerns in an explicit way post-measurement, just as pharmacy staffs' explicit recognition and elicitation of needs and concerns. This was not seen for patients' needs. No statistically significant differences were found for determinants for detecting needs or concerns (i.e., measurement-, professional-type, or interaction). Differences in mentalizing attitude were observed between pre-post-measurements, e.g., more attention for patients. CONCLUSION: This mentalizing training shows the potential of mentalizing to improve pharmacy staff members' explicit elicitation and recognition of patients' medication-related needs and concerns. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The training seems promising for improving patient-oriented communication skills in pharmacy staff. Future studies should confirm this result.

Communication during encounters about medication switching: Self-reported experiences of pharmacy technicians and patients.

Background: During conversations about medication switches, pharmacy staff often deliver a message to patients that may lead to negative emotions. In these situations, clear and patient-centered communication is important. Aim: To gain insight into pharmacy technician-patient experiences regarding the communication during medication switching encounters, and in specific to map the needs and preferences of patients and whether pharmacy technicians (PTs) meet these. Method: PTs were invited to fill in a questionnaire via the Dutch Panel on practical research for Pharmacy Employees. Online questionnaires were distributed to adult chronic mediation users in two patient panels. Questionnaires contained questions on how PTs and patients experience the medication switch conversations at the moment (i.e. type of information patients need/receive, timing of information, channel, communication style), and whether the needs and preferences of patients are met. Results: In total, 138 PTs and 4679 patients responded. PTs indicated that they regularly struggle with these conversations due to emotional or negative responses of patients. Most patients expressed the need for information about why the medication switch took place (68%) and about the (same) effect of the medication (61%), while fewer patients currently receive this information (21% and 39%, respectively). Patients also indicated they need verbal information during pick-up/delivery (45%), written information beforehand (29%) and during pick-up/delivery (25%), while patients more often receive verbal information during pick-up (58%), and less frequently receive written information beforehand (6%) and during pick-up/delivery (18%). Conclusion: Communication during medication switch conversations generally goes well. However, there is a difference between what PTs claim they do and what patients experience, e.g. space for questions and patients' satisfaction about this aspect. Dealing with patient emotions is also difficult for PTs. Patients emphasize they need more information than they currently receive, preferably before switching. Matching these needs and preferences can improve patient-centered communication.

Understanding the healthcare providers' perspective for bringing the assessment of burden of chronic conditions tool to practice: a protocol for an implementation study.

INTRODUCTION: The Assessment of Burden of Chronic Conditions (ABCC) tool is developed and validated to support and facilitate a personalised approach to care for people with chronic conditions. The benefit of using the ABCC-tool greatly depends on how it is implemented. To enable a deeper understanding of when, how and by whom the ABCC-tool is used, this study protocol describes the design of an implementation study in which the context, experiences and implementation process of the ABCC-tool by primary care healthcare providers (HCPs) in the Netherlands will be investigated. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol describes an implementation study alongside an effectiveness trial, in which the ABCC-tool is evaluated in general practices. The implementation strategy of the tool in the trial confines to providing written information and an instruction video explaining the technical use of the ABCC-tool. The outcomes include a description of: (1) the barriers and facilitators of HCPs for implementation of the ABCC-tool, guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and (2) the implementation outcomes guided by the Reach-Effect-Adoption-Implementation-Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework Carroll's fidelity framework. All outcomes will be gathered through individual semistructured interviews throughout 12 months of use. Interviews will be audiorecorded and transcribed. Transcripts will be analysed using content analysis for identifying barriers and facilitators (based on CFIR) and thematic analyses of HCPs' experiences (based on the RE-AIM and the fidelity frameworks). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The presented study was approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of Zuyderland Hospital, Heerlen (METCZ20180131). Written informed consent is mandatory prior to participation in the study. The results from the study in this protocol will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed scientific journals and conference presentations.

Provision of and trust in COVID-19 vaccines information: Perspectives of people who have had COVID-19.

AIM: The aim of this study was to understand the provision and need, quality of and trust in COVID-19 vaccines information from the perspectives of people who have had COVID-19 infection. METHOD: People who have had a COVID-19 infection were approached via their general practice and invited to participate in the Nivel Corona Cohort. They completed questionnaires at baseline (Q1), and at three months (Q2). Outcome measures were based on health information-seeking behaviour, as used in the Comprehensive Model of Information Seeking. Antecedents (i.e., gender, age, education level, health literacy) were used from Q1, and one's beliefs and experiences (i.e., trust in the information and healthcare system, how applicable the information is), information carrier factors (i.e., information quality perceptions and via which sources), health-information seeking actions (i.e., decision to vaccinate and information sufficiency) and vaccination status from Q2. Data were analysed using descriptive analyses, analysis of variance tests (F-tests) and χ2 tests with the statistical software STATA. RESULTS: Of the respondents (N = 314), 96% were vaccinated at least once, mostly after having had the virus. Most retrieved information about COVID-19 vaccines on the website of the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (79%), broader via the internet (56%), or from family and friends (35%). Almost all had trust in the information (89%) and healthcare system (94%). Most found the information applicable to their situation (67%). Moreover, most perceived the information as correct (71%) and did not perceive the information to be misleading (85%), while fewer people found the information reliable (59%) and clear (58%). Overall, the majority indicated that the information met their expectations to make a well-informed decision to vaccinate (89%). CONCLUSION: Different characteristics of people who had COVID-19 and sought information were identified, which is important to offer tailored information. People who had COVID-19 in this study, mainly middle-aged, vaccinated and highly educated, were generally positive about the vaccines information, but overall the reliability and clarity could be improved. This is important for a high vaccination uptake, booster programs and coming pandemics. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The questionnaire was reviewed by patients who had COVID-19, one of whom is a health services researcher.

Facilitating pharmacy staff's conversations about non-medical medication switches: Development and testing of a communication training.

BACKGROUND: Non-medical medication switches, a change to another medicine or medication label not motivated by medical reasons, occur frequently. Switches often lead to negative patient emotions, such as confusion and anger. Pharmacy staff's communication, i.e. delivering the message and addressing patients' emotions is crucial, but experienced as difficult. OBJECTIVE: To develop and test a communication training for the pharmacy team to facilitate medication switch conversations. METHODS: A communication training was developed based on the 'breaking bad news model' and 'positive message framing' strategies, and incorporating needs and preferences from practice. The training consisted of an e-learning with theory and reflective exercises, a half-day live training session, and an online reflection session. The Kirkpatrick training evaluation model (levels one 'reaction' and two 'learning') was used to evaluate the training. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and interview data was transcribed verbatim and analyzed thematically. RESULTS: Twelve pharmacists and 27 pharmacy technicians from 15 Dutch pharmacies participated in the training. According to Kirkpatrick's model level one, the major learning outcome was to give space to patients to express their emotions and/or concerns (e.g. more silences in the conversations). For level two, most participants valued practicing the conversations, role-playing, and receiving feedback. The majority of the participants indicated that they had sufficient tools and practice during the live training to apply the strategies in daily practice. A few participants still needed time and practice, or missed examples to apply the strategies. CONCLUSION: The communication training based on the two strategies was well-received and participants felt well-equipped post-training. The take-away for participants was to give space to patients to express their emotions. Using these strategies and skills, pharmacy teams can tailor their medication counseling to patients' emotions and concerns during non-medical medication switches to better support patients in proper medication use.

Immediate release fentanyl in general practices: Mostly off-label prescribing.

BACKGROUND: The immediacy of the onset of opioids may be associated with the risk of dependency and accidental overdose. Nasal and oromucosal fentanyl dosage forms are so called immediate release fentanyl (IRF). These IRFs have been approved to treat breakthrough pain in patients with cancer who are on chronic opioid treatment only. There are signals of increased off-label prescribing of IRFs in general practices. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to provide insight into the frequency of IRF prescription in Dutch general practices and the extent to which IRF is prescribed off-label. METHODS: Routinely collected electronic health records of general practices (GPs) participating in Nivel Primary Care Database were used. Adult patients with IRF prescriptions in 2019 were selected from whom dispensing data on 2018 and 2019 was available. Diagnoses were recorded by GPs using International Classification of Primary Care. Descriptive analyses were performed. RESULTS: This study included 342 GPs with a patient population of 1,297,942 patients, 1,368 patients received at least one IRF prescription in 2019, which is equal to 1.1 patients per 1,000 registered patients. Most patients (74.9%) with an IRF prescription received an off-label prescription. A slight majority had a cancer diagnosis but nearly 65.2% did not have a maintenance therapy and 14% were opioid-naive before receiving their first IRF prescription. CONCLUSION: IRFs are not prescribed frequently in Dutch general practices. However, when prescribed, a relatively large portion of patients received an off-label prescription.

Scalability of effective adherence interventions for patients using cardiovascular disease medication: A realist synthesis-inspired systematic review.

Upscaling of medication adherence interventions to routine care is still challenging. This realist theory-inspired review aimed to assess which intervention aspects are potentially important for the scalability of effective cardiovascular disease (CVD) medication adherence interventions and how they are reported in effectiveness studies. A total of 4097 articles from four databases were screened of which ultimately 31 studies were included. Relevant information on scalability was extracted using a theoretic framework based on the scalability assessment tool used in the QUALIDEC study for the following domains: (i) innovation, (ii) implementers and patients, (iii) adopting organizations and health system, and (iv) socio-political context. Extracted articles were analysed for themes and chains of inference, which were grouped based on commonality and source of evidence to form new hypotheses. Six different domains relevant for scalability of adherence interventions were identified: (1) Complexity of the intervention; (2) training; (3) customization of the intervention; (4) drivers of the intervention; (5) technical interventions; and (6) stakeholder involvement. These six domains might be useful for the development of more scalable interventions by bridging the gap between research and practice. Data relevant for scalability is not well reported on in effectiveness trials for CVD medication adherence interventions and only limited data on scalability has been published in additional papers. We believe the adoption and reach of effective CVD medication adherence interventions will improve with increased awareness for the necessity of scalability in all phases of intervention development.

[What can you do to not be influenced?] / Wat kunt u doen om niet beïnvloed te worden?

OBJECTIVES: To identify persuasion strategies in paper-based marketing materials about medicines, sent to general practices. DESIGN: Observational study. METHOD: Twenty Dutch general practices collected all mail from pharmaceutical companies during one month. These materials were assessed by researchers with backgrounds in pharmacy and marketing for the presence of seven persuasion strategies, described by Cialdini. The researchers also identified the marketed medicines. RESULTS: The general practitioners collected 68 unique marketing materials involving 37 different medicines with a median introduction year of 2012 (range 1966-2022). Factor Xa inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 analogues, and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors were the most marketed drugs. All persuasion strategies described by Cialdini were observed: liking (65% of all materials), authority (29%), social proof (18%), unity (15%), scarcity (13%), reciprocity (12%), and consistency/commitment (3%). Emotional pressure was identified as a new strategy (31%). This strategy leverages the prescriber's professional responsibility by appealing to the physician's duty to do what is best for the patient. CONCLUSION: General practitioners regularly receive paper-based marketing materials about new medicines that attempt to influence the recipient. In the context of rational use of medicines, it is recommended to be vigilant about such persuasion strategies and to make physicians (both practicing and in training) aware of these strategies, including possible mechanisms to resist them whenever possible.

Adherence to coprescribing of laxatives with opioids and associated characteristics in general practices in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend to prescribe a laxative with an opioid to prevent constipation. We aimed to determine the adherence by general practitioners (GPs) to this recommendation and to explore which GP- and patient related factors were associated with it from the perspective of the GP.  METHODS: We conducted an observational study using GPs' prescription data from the Nivel Primary Care Database combined with a questionnaire asking for reasons of non-adherence. The proportion of first opioid prescriptions prescribed together with a laxative was determined as primary outcome. Possible explanatory factors such as the quality of registration, the level of collaboration with the pharmacy, familiarity with the recommendation and use of a clinical decision support system were explored, as were the self-reported reasons for non-adherence (classified as either GP-related or patient-related). We assessed the association of factors with the primary outcome using univariable multilevel logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: The recommendation was measured in 195 general practices. The median proportion of first opioid prescriptions prescribed together with a laxative in these practices was 54% (practice range 18-88%). None of the determinants was consistently associated with the primary outcome. GPs from 211 practices filled out the questionnaire and the most frequently mentioned reason not to prescribe a laxative was that the patient has laxatives in stock, followed by that the patient doesn't want a laxative; both were patient-related factors. CONCLUSION: There was room for improvement in following the guideline on laxative prescribing in opioid use. A main reason seemed to be that the patient refuses a laxative. Improvement measures should therefore focus on communication between GPs and patients on the relevance of co-using a laxative with opioids. Future studies need to establish the effect of such improvement measures, and determine whether reasons for non-adherence to the guideline changed over time.

Feasibility of a protocol for deprescribing antihypertensive medication in older patients in Dutch general practices.

BACKGROUND: Older patients using antihypertensive medication may experience Adverse Drug Events (ADEs), and thus benefit from deprescribing. The lack of a practical protocol may hamper deprescribing. Therefore, we aimed to develop a deprescribing protocol, based on a review of literature, combined with a feasibility test in a small number of patients. METHODS: A deprescribing protocol for general practitioners was drafted and tested in older patients using multiple antihypertensive medication in a single arm intervention. Patients were included if they were 75 years or older, were using two or more antihypertensives, had at least one ADE linked to antihypertensive medication and deprescribing was considered to be safe by their general practitioner. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients for whom one or more antihypertensive drugs were stopped or reduced in dose after 12 months of follow up while maintaining safe blood pressures. Secondary outcomes were the proportion of patients reporting no ADEs after 12 months and the number of deprescribed antihypertensives. Patient's opinions on deprescribing and enablers and barriers for study participation were also collected. RESULTS: Nine general practitioners included 14 patients to deprescribe antihypertensive medication using the deprescribing protocol. After 12 months antihypertensive drug use was lowered in 11 patients (79%). These patients had a mean systolic blood pressure increase of 16 mmHg and a mean diastolic blood pressure increase of 8 mmHg. Nine patients (64%) reported experiencing no ADEs anymore after twelve months. The mean number of deprescribed antihypertensives was 1.1 in all patients and 1.4 (range: 0.5 to 3.5) in patients who successfully lowered their medication. At baseline, being able to use less medication was the most frequently mentioned enabler to participate in this study. The most frequently mentioned positive experience at the end of the study was using less medication, which was in line with the most mentioned enabler to participate in this study. CONCLUSION: A protocol for deprescribing antihypertensives in older patients was considered feasible, as it resulted in a substantial degree of safe deprescribing in this pilot study. Larger studies are needed to demonstrate the effect and safety of deprescribing antihypertensives in older patients.

Comprehensibility of a personalized medication overview compared to usual-care prescription drug labels.

Poor understanding of prescription drug label (PDL) instructions can lead to medication errors, suboptimal treatment (side) effects, and non-adherence. A personalized medication hard-copy overview listing PDL instructions and visual information may support patients in their medication use. This study aimed to investigate the comprehensibility of PDL instructions on a personalized medication overview compared to usual-care PDL instructions presented on a medication box. A hypothetical-online-experiment was set up, comparing groups of respondents exposed vs not exposed to the medication overview and who received PDL instructions for three, five, or eight medications. Participants were divided randomly in six groups. Online questionnaires were sent to a stratified sample of 900 members from the Nivel Dutch Healthcare Consumer Panel. Outcome measures included comprehension of instructions for medication use, e.g. how often, dose timing, usage advice and warnings for a medication with simple use instructions (omeprazol) and more complex use instructions (levodopa/carbidopa (L/C)). To analyze differences between experimental conditions ANOVA testing was used. 604 respondents (net response 67%) completed the questionnaires. Respondents exposed (E) to the overview gave a higher proportion of correct answers compared to non-exposed (NE) respondents for usage advice (L/C: mean 0.83, SD 0.4 E; 0.03, SD 0.2 NE, p < 0.001; omeprazol: mean 0.85, SD 0.4 E; 0.10, SD 0.3 NE, p < 0.001). Both groups gave the same proportion of correct answers (mean 0.80, SD 0.4, p = 1.0) for dose timing of omeprazol. More NE respondents gave correct answers for how often (mean 0.85, SD 0.4 NE; mean 0.76, SD 0.4 E, p = 0.02) and dose timing (mean 0.92, SD 0.3 NE; mean 0.86, SD 0.4 E, p = 0.04) of L/C. No differences were found regarding number of medications nor were interaction effects found between the number of medications and information type. As a medication overview contains additional information, it can be a good addition in supporting patients in their medication use compared to usual-care PDLs. Future research should focus on identifying patient groups who might benefit more from a medication overview, by testing the effect of such overview on this group.