Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA 02120, USA.
J Gen Intern Med. 2010 Oct;25(10):1090-6. doi: 10.1007/s11606-010-1387-9. Epub 2010 May 13.
Medications for the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease save lives but adherence is often inadequate. The optimal role for physicians in improving adherence remains unclear.
Using existing evidence, we set the goal of evaluating the physician's role in improving medication adherence.
We conducted systematic searches of English-language peer-reviewed publications in MEDLINE and EMBASE from 1966 through 12/31/2008.
We selected randomized controlled trials of interventions to improve adherence to medications used for preventing or treating cardiovascular disease or diabetes.
Articles were classified as either (1) physician "active"-a physician participated in designing or implementing the intervention; (2) physician "passive"-physicians treating intervention group patients received patient adherence information while physicians treating controls did not; or (3) physicians noninvolved. We also identified studies in which healthcare professionals helped deliver the intervention. We did a meta-analysis of the studies involving healthcare professionals to determine aggregate Cohen's D effect sizes (ES).
We identified 6,550 articles; 168 were reviewed in full, 82 met inclusion criteria. The majority of all studies (88.9%) showed improved adherence. Physician noninvolved studies were more likely (35.0% of studies) to show a medium or large effect on adherence compared to physician-involved studies (31.3%). Among interventions requiring a healthcare professional, physician-noninvolved interventions were more effective (ES 0.47; 95% CI 0.38-0.56) than physician-involved interventions (ES 0.25; 95% CI 0.21-0.29; p < 0.001). Among physician-involved interventions, physician-passive interventions were marginally more effective (ES 0.29; 95% CI 0.22-0.36) than physician-active interventions (ES 0.23; 95% CI 0.17-0.28; p = 0.2).
Adherence interventions utilizing non-physician healthcare professionals are effective in improving cardiovascular medication adherence, but further study is needed to identify the optimal role for physicians.
用于预防和治疗心血管疾病的药物可以挽救生命,但患者的用药依从性往往不够理想。医生在提高用药依从性方面的最佳作用仍不明确。
利用现有证据,我们设定了评估医生在改善药物依从性方面作用的目标。
我们对从 1966 年至 2008 年 12 月 31 日期间 MEDLINE 和 EMBASE 中发表的英文同行评议文献进行了系统检索。
我们选择了旨在提高用于预防或治疗心血管疾病或糖尿病的药物的用药依从性的干预措施的随机对照试验。
文章被分为以下 3 类:(1)医生“主动”——医生参与设计或实施干预措施;(2)医生“被动”——接受干预组治疗的医生获得患者用药依从性信息,而接受对照组治疗的医生未获得;或(3)医生不参与。我们还确定了医疗保健专业人员帮助实施干预措施的研究。我们对涉及医疗保健专业人员的研究进行了荟萃分析,以确定综合 Cohen's D 效应量(ES)。
我们共识别出 6550 篇文章,对其中 168 篇进行了全文评价,有 82 篇符合纳入标准。所有研究中,大多数(88.9%)显示出用药依从性的改善。与医生参与的研究(31.3%)相比,医生不参与的研究(35.0%)更有可能显示出对用药依从性的中等或较大影响。在需要医疗保健专业人员的干预措施中,医生不参与的干预措施(ES 0.47;95% CI 0.38-0.56)比医生参与的干预措施(ES 0.25;95% CI 0.21-0.29;p < 0.001)更有效。在医生参与的干预措施中,医生被动干预措施的效果略高于医生主动干预措施(ES 0.29;95% CI 0.22-0.36)(p = 0.2)。
利用非医师医疗保健专业人员的依从性干预措施可以有效提高心血管药物的依从性,但仍需要进一步研究以确定医生的最佳作用。