Europe’s aging population is leading to a growing number of people affected by chronic disease, which will continue over the coming decades. Healthcare systems are under pressure to deliver appropriate care, partly due to the burden imposed on their limited financial and human resources by the growing number of people with (multiple) chronic diseases. Therefore, there is a strong call for patient self-management to meet these patients’ healthcare needs. While many patients experience medication self-management as difficult, it poses additional challenges for people with limited health literacy. This thesis aims to explore the needs of patients with a chronic disease and limited health literacy regarding medication self-management and how support for medication self-management can be tailored to those needs.
DOCUMENT
Background Medication self-management is complicated for older people. Little is known about older persons’ considerations and decisions concerning medication therapy at home. Objective (s): To explore how older people living at home self-manage their medication and what considerations and decisions underpin their medication self-management behavior. Methods Semi-structured interviews with consenting participants (living at home, aged ≥65, ≥5 different prescription medications daily) were recorded and transcribed with supporting photographs. Content was analyzed with a directed approach and presented according to three phases of medication self-management (initiation, execution, and discontinuation). Results Sixty people were interviewed. In the initiation phase, participants used different techniques to inform healthcare professionals and to fill and check prescriptions. Over-the-counter medication was seldom discussed, and potential interactions were unknown to the participants. Some participants decided to not start treatment after reading the patient information leaflets for fear of side effects. In the execution phase, participants had various methods for integrating the use of new and chronic medication in daily life. Usage problems were discussed with healthcare professionals, but side effects were not discussed, since the participants were not aware that the signs and symptoms of side effects could be medication-related. Furthermore, participants stored medication in various (sometimes incorrect) ways and devised their own systems for ordering and filling repeat prescriptions. In the discontinuation phase, some participants decided to stop or change doses by themselves (because of side effects, therapeutic effects, or a lack of effect). They also mentioned different considerations regarding medication disposal and disposed their medication (in)correctly, stored it for future use, or distributed it to others. Conclusions Participants’ considerations and decisions led to the following: problems in organizing medication intake, inadequate discussion of medication-related information with healthcare professionals, and incorrect and undesirable medication storage and disposal. There is a need for medication self-management observation, monitoring, and assistance by healthcare professionals.
LINK
Abstract: Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma have a high prevalence and disease burden. Blended self-management interventions, which combine eHealth with face-to-face interventions, can help reduce the disease burden. Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to examine the effectiveness of blended self-management interventions on health-related effectiveness and process outcomes for people with COPD or asthma. Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, COCHRANE Library, Emcare, and Embase were searched in December 2018 and updated in November 2020. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias (ROB) 2 tool and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Results: A total of 15 COPD and 7 asthma randomized controlled trials were included in this study. The meta-analysis of COPD studies found that the blended intervention showed a small improvement in exercise capacity (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.48; 95% CI 0.10-0.85) and a significant improvement in the quality of life (QoL; SMD 0.81; 95% CI 0.11-1.51). Blended intervention also reduced the admission rate (relative ratio [RR] 0.61; 95% CI 0.38-0.97). In the COPD systematic review, regarding the exacerbation frequency, both studies found that the intervention reduced exacerbation frequency (RR 0.38; 95% CI 0.26-0.56). A large effect was found on BMI (d=0.81; 95% CI 0.25-1.34); however, the effect was inconclusive because only 1 study was included. Regarding medication adherence, 2 of 3 studies found a moderate effect (d=0.73; 95% CI 0.50-0.96), and 1 study reported a mixed effect. Regarding self-management ability, 1 study reported a large effect (d=1.15; 95% CI 0.66-1.62), and no effect was reported in that study. No effect was found on other process outcomes. The meta-analysis of asthma studies found that blended intervention had a small improvement in lung function (SMD 0.40; 95% CI 0.18-0.62) and QoL (SMD 0.36; 95% CI 0.21-0.50) and a moderate improvement in asthma control (SMD 0.67; 95% CI 0.40-0.93). A large effect was found on BMI (d=1.42; 95% CI 0.28-2.42) and exercise capacity (d=1.50; 95% CI 0.35-2.50); however, 1 study was included per outcome. There was no effect on other outcomes. Furthermore, the majority of the 22 studies showed some concerns about the ROB, and the quality of evidence varied. Conclusions: In patients with COPD, the blended self-management interventions had mixed effects on health-related outcomes, with the strongest evidence found for exercise capacity, QoL, and admission rate. Furthermore, the review suggested that the interventions resulted in small effects on lung function and QoL and a moderate effect on asthma control in patients with asthma. There is some evidence for the effectiveness of blended self-management interventions for patients with COPD and asthma; however, more research is needed. Trial Registration: PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42019119894; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=119894
DOCUMENT
