Chan Amy Hai Yan, Cooper Vanessa, Lycett Helen, Horne Rob
Centre of Behavioural Medicine, Department of Practice and Policy, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
School of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Front Pharmacol. 2020 May 13;11:572. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2020.00572. eCollection 2020.
Practical adherence barriers (e.g., medication frequency) are generally more amenable to intervention than perceptual barriers (e.g., beliefs). Measures which assess adherence barriers exist, however these tend to measure a mix of factors. There is a need to identify what practical barriers are captured by current measures.
To identify and synthesise the practical adherence barriers which are assessed by currently available self- or observer-report adherence measures.
A search for systematic reviews of self- or observer-report report adherence measures was conducted. Three electronic databases (Embase, Ovid Medline, and PsycInfo) were searched using terms based on adherence, adherence barriers and measures. Systematic reviews reporting on adherence measures which included at least one self- or observer-report questionnaire or scale were included. Adherence measures were extracted and coded on whether they addressed perceptual or practical barriers, or both. Practical items were then analysed thematically.
Following screening of 272 initial abstracts, 20 full-text papers were reviewed. Four were excluded after full-text review, leaving 16 systematic reviews for data extraction. From these, 187 different adherence measures were extracted and coded, and 23 unique measures were identified as assessing practical barriers and included in the final analysis. Seven key themes were identified: formulation; instructions for use; issues with remembering; capability-knowledge and skills; financial; medication supply and social environment.
Existing adherence measures capture a variety of practical barriers which can be grouped into seven categories. These findings may be used to inform the development of a measure of practical adherence barriers.
实际的依从性障碍(如用药频率)通常比认知障碍(如信念)更易于干预。虽然存在评估依从性障碍的措施,但这些措施往往衡量的是多种因素的混合。有必要确定当前措施所涵盖的实际障碍是什么。
确定并综合目前可用的自我报告或观察者报告的依从性措施所评估的实际依从性障碍。
对自我报告或观察者报告的依从性措施的系统评价进行检索。使用基于依从性、依从性障碍和措施的术语对三个电子数据库(Embase、Ovid Medline和PsycInfo)进行检索。纳入报告至少一项自我报告或观察者报告问卷或量表的依从性措施的系统评价。提取依从性措施,并对其是否涉及认知障碍或实际障碍或两者进行编码。然后对实际项目进行主题分析。
在筛选了272篇初始摘要后,对20篇全文进行了审查。全文审查后排除了4篇,剩下16篇系统评价进行数据提取。从中提取并编码了187种不同的依从性措施,确定了23种独特的措施用于评估实际障碍,并纳入最终分析。确定了七个关键主题:剂型;使用说明;记忆问题;能力-知识和技能;财务;药物供应和社会环境。
现有的依从性措施涵盖了多种实际障碍,可分为七类。这些发现可用于为实际依从性障碍测量方法的开发提供参考。