Department of Global Health and Population, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.
Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
Health Serv Res. 2020 Feb;55(1):136-145. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.13243. Epub 2019 Dec 13.
To test the impact of connecting physicians, pharmacists, and patients to address medication nonadherence, and to compare different physician choice architectures.
The study was conducted with 90 physicians and 2602 of their patients on medications treating chronic illness.
In this cluster randomized controlled trial, physicians were randomly assigned to an arm where the physician receives notification of patient nonadherence derived from real-time claims data, an arm where they receive this information and a pharmacist may contact patients either by default or by physician choice, and a control group. The primary outcome was resolving nonadherence within 30 days. We also considered physician engagement outcomes including viewing information about nonadherence and utilizing a pharmacist.
Physician engagement was constructed from metadata from the study website; adherence outcomes were constructed from medication claims.
We see no differences between the treatment arms and control for the primary adherence outcome. The pharmacist intervention was 42 percentage points (95% CI: 28 pp-56 pp) more likely when it was triggered by default.
Access to a pharmacist and real-time nonadherence information did not improve patient adherence. Physician process of care was sensitive to choice architecture.
测试将医生、药剂师和患者联系起来解决药物依从性问题的效果,并比较不同的医生选择架构。
这项研究在 90 名医生和 2602 名正在服用慢性病药物的患者中进行。
在这项聚类随机对照试验中,医生被随机分配到以下几个组:一组是医生收到实时索赔数据提示患者不依从的通知;一组是他们收到这些信息且药剂师可以根据默认或医生选择联系患者;一组是对照组。主要结果是在 30 天内解决不依从问题。我们还考虑了包括查看不依从信息和利用药剂师在内的医生参与度结果。
医生参与度是从研究网站的元数据中构建的;依从性结果是从药物索赔中构建的。
我们没有发现治疗组和对照组在主要依从性结果上有差异。当触发默认时,药剂师干预的可能性高 42 个百分点(95%CI:28 个百分点-56 个百分点)。
获得药剂师和实时不依从信息并不能提高患者的依从性。医生的护理过程对选择架构很敏感。