Exploring patient and pharmacist perspectives on complex interventions for cardiovascular prevention: A qualitative descriptive process evaluation.

BACKGROUND

The Assessing outcomes of enhanced Chronic disease Care through patient Education and a value-baSed formulary Study (ACCESS) is a randomized controlled trial evaluating two interventions targeting barriers to care among those at high risk of cardiovascular disease: copayment elimination for cardioprotective medications, and a tailored self-management support programme. We designed a process evaluation to better understand participant perspectives on the interventions.

DESIGN

We used a qualitative descriptive study design, collecting patient and pharmacist feedback via individual semi-structured telephone interviews and in-person focus groups. Data were analysed inductively using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Fifty-three patients (39 interviews and 14 in two focus groups) and 20 pharmacists participated. Copayment elimination provided quality of life benefits: minimizing the need to 'cut-back', allowing 'peace of mind' and providing emotional support. Health-related benefits included: improving adherence to covered medications, and helping to afford non-covered goods. The only criticism was that not all medications and testing supplies were covered. Patients reported that the educational materials provided helpful information, acted as a reminder, improved confidence, improved adherence to medication, and helped initiate conversations with providers about indicated medication. Some participants felt that the educational materials were repetitive, overly medication-focused and not tailored enough. Pharmacists felt that their patients benefitted from both interventions, which improved patient adherence and communication with their patients.

CONCLUSION

The success of interventions intended to change behaviour is largely dependent upon participant's feelings that the intervention is helpful. This process evaluation provided insights into participants' perceptions on these interventions. Reception of both was largely positive with a few criticisms noted.