Dataset Information

Why are self-medication opportunities limited in Austria? An interview study and comparison with other countries.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Austria has high health resource use compared to similar countries. Reclassifying (switching) medicines from prescription to non-prescription can reduce pressure on health resources and aid timely access to medicines. Since Austria is less progressive in this area than many other countries, this research aimed to elucidate enablers and barriers to it reclassifying medicines and make recommendations for change in the context of similar research conducted elsewhere.

Methods

Qualitative research using a heuristic approach was conducted in Austria in 2018. Informed by their own "insider" and "outsider" knowledge, the authors identified themes from personal interviews with 24 participants, including reclassification committee members, government officials and stakeholders, before comparing these themes with earlier research findings.

Results

Significant barriers to reclassification included committee conservatism, minimal political support, medical negativity and few company applications. Insufficient transparency about committee decisions, expectations of adverse committee decisions and a limited market discouraged company applications. Austria's 'social partnership' arrangement and consensus decision making aided a conservative approach, but the regulator and an alternative non-committee switch process were enabling. Pharmacy showed mixed interest in reclassification. Suggested improvements include increasing transparency, committee composition changes, encouraging a more evidence-based approach by the committee, more pharmacy undergraduate clinical training, and companies using scientific advisory meetings and submitting high quality applications.

Conclusion

Removing barriers to reclassification would facilitate non-prescription availability of medicines and encourage self-care, and could reduce pressure on healthcare resources.

SUBMITTER: Gauld NJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7833129 | biostudies-literature | 2021

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Why are self-medication opportunities limited in Austria? An interview study and comparison with other countries.

Gauld Natalie J NJ Baumgärtel Christoph A CA Buetow Stephen A SA

PloS one 20210125 1

<h4>Background</h4>Austria has high health resource use compared to similar countries. Reclassifying (switching) medicines from prescription to non-prescription can reduce pressure on health resources and aid timely access to medicines. Since Austria is less progressive in this area than many other countries, this research aimed to elucidate enablers and barriers to it reclassifying medicines and make recommendations for change in the context of similar research conducted elsewhere.<h4>Methods</ ...[more]

PMID: 33493218

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThere are no uniform regulations for the osteopathic profession in Europe. It is subject to country-specific regulations defining who shall be allowed to practice osteopathy and which qualification shall be required. In recent years, legal regulations have been established in several European countries for the profession of osteopathy; however, these are also still pending for Austria. Currently, physiotherapists and physicians with osteopathic training are practicing osteopathy in Austria.ObjectiveThis study aims to examine the characteristics, challenges, and opportunities of osteopaths in Austria.MethodsGuideline-based interviews with osteopaths (N=10) were conducted. The different research questions were examined using a qualitative content analysis.ResultsThe study provided a differentiated insight into the professional situation of osteopaths in Austria. The most important result was that all interviewees unanimously supported a legal regulation of their profession. However, owing to their different professional self-image-on the one hand, individuals working on a structural basis, and, on the other hand, individuals working on a cranial or biodynamic basis-they were able to imagine a uniform professional regulation only to a limited extent. Additional topics for the interviewed osteopaths in Austria were the quality assurance of training and the urgent need for scientific research. Furthermore, the study also dealt with the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on daily practice and on education and training in osteopathy.ConclusionsThis study is a pioneering study with regard to systematic basic research on osteopathy in Austria. The obtained results and the newly acquired research questions not only have the potential to serve as a basis for further studies but also provide insight into the working and professional situation of osteopaths in Austria for universities, schools, professional associations, politics, and-last but not least-all interested parties.International registered report identifier (irrid)RR2-10.2196/15399.

Project description:BackgroundSelf-binding directives (SBDs) are psychiatric advance directives that include the possibility for service users to consent in advance to compulsory care in future mental health crises. Legal provisions for SBDs exist in the Netherlands since 2008 and were updated in 2020. While ethicists and legal scholars have identified several benefits and risks of SBDs, few data on stakeholder perspectives on SBDs are available.AimsThe aim of the study was to identify opportunities and challenges of SBDs perceived by stakeholders who have personal or professional experience with legally enforceable SBDs.MethodsData collection was carried out in the Netherlands from February 2020 to October 2021 by means of semi-structured interviews. Participants were selected through purposive sampling and snowball methods. Interviews were conducted with mental health service users (n = 7), professionals (n = 13), and an expert on SBD policy (n = 1), resulting in a total number of 21 interviews. The data were analyzed thematically.ResultsPerceived benefits of SBDs included increased autonomy, improvement of the therapeutic relationship, possibility of early intervention and prevention of harm, prevention of compulsory care, reduction of the duration of compulsory care and recovery, mitigation of negative experiences around compulsory care, and guidance for professionals in providing compulsory care. Perceived risks included infeasibility of SBD instructions, difficulty in decision-making around SBD activation, limited accessibility of SBDs, disappointment of service users due to non-compliance with SBDs, and limited evaluation and updating of SBD content. Barriers to SBD completion included lack of knowledge of SBDs among professionals, lack of motivation or insight among service users, and lack of professional support for SBD completion. Facilitators of SBD completion and activation included support for SBD completion, involvement of relatives and peer experts, specification of SBD content, and evaluation of compulsory care and SBD content. The new legal framework was regarded as having both positive and negative effects on SBD implementation.ConclusionsStakeholders who have personal or professional experience with legally enforceable SBDs perceive SBDs as having important benefits and tend not to articulate the fundamental ethical concerns about SBDs which can be found in the ethics and legal literature. Instead, they perceive ethical and practical challenges that can be addressed through the implementation of suitable safeguards.

Project description:BackgroundThe use of psychotropic medications and their adverse effects in frail elderly has been debated extensively. However, recent data from European studies show that these drugs are still frequently prescribed in nursing home residents. In Austria, prevalence data are lacking. We aimed to determine the prevalence of psychotropic medication prescription in Austrian nursing homes and to explore characteristics associated with their prescription.MethodsCross-sectional study and association analysis in forty-eight out of 50 nursing homes with 1844 out of a total of 2005 residents in a defined urban-rural region in Austria. Prescribed medication was retrieved from residents' charts. Psychotropic medications were coded according to the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification 2005. Cluster-adjusted multiple logistic regression analysis was performed to investigate institutional and residents' characteristics associated with prescription.ResultsResidents' mean age was 81; 73% of residents were female. Mean cluster-adjusted prevalence of residents with at least one psychotropic medication was 74.6% (95% confidence interval, CI, 72.0-77.2). A total of 45.9% (95% CI 42.7-49.1) had at least one prescription of an antipsychotic medication. Two third of all antipsychotic medications were prescribed for bedtime use only. Anxiolytics were prescribed in 22.2% (95% CI 20.0-24.5), hypnotics in 13.3% (95% CI 11.3-15.4), and antidepressants in 36.8% (95% CI 34.1-39.6) of residents. None of the institutional characteristics and only few residents' characteristics were significantly associated with psychotropic medication prescription. Permanent restlessness was positively associated with psychotropic medication prescription (AOR 1.54, 95% CI 1.32-1.79) whereas cognitive impairment was inversely associated (AOR 0.70, 95% CI 0.56-0.88).ConclusionFrequency of psychotropic medication prescription is high in Austrian nursing homes compared to recent published data from other countries. Interventions should aim at reduction and optimisation of prescriptions.

Project description:BackgroundOlder adults with chronic kidney disease (CKD) typically use more than 5 medications and have multiple prescribing physicians. However, little is known about how they prioritize their medical conditions or decide which medications to take.MethodsSemistructured interviews (average length, 40 minutes) with 20 community-dwelling adults with CKD stages 3-5D receiving nephrology care at a tertiary referral center. Respondents were asked about medications, prescribing physicians, and medication-taking behaviors. We performed thematic analysis to explain patients' decisions regarding medication prioritization, understanding, and adherence decisions.ResultsParticipants (age range, 55-84 years; mean, 72 years) used 5-14 prescribed medications, had 2-9 physicians, and had 5-11 comorbid conditions. All had assigned implicit priorities to their medications. Although most expressed the intention to be adherent, many regularly skipped medications they considered less important. Most identified the prescribing physician and indication for each medication, but there often was substantial discordance between beliefs about medications and conventional medical opinion. Respondents prioritized medications based on the salience of the particular condition, perceived effects of the treatment, and barriers (physical, logistic, or financial) to using the prescribed drug. Side effects of medications were common and anxiety provoking, but discussions with the prescribing physician often were delayed or unfulfilling for the patient.ConclusionsPolypharmacy in patients with CKD leads to complex medication choices and adherence behaviors in this population. Most patients we interviewed had beliefs or priorities that were nonconcordant with conventional medical opinion; however, patients rarely discussed these beliefs and priorities or the resultant poor medication adherence with their physicians. Further study is needed to provide quantitative data about the magnitude of adherence barriers. It is likely that more effective communication about medication use could improve patients' health outcomes and reduce potential adverse drug events.

Project description:IntroductionMedication non-adherence is an important public health issue, associated with poor clinical and economic outcomes. Globally, self-reported instruments are the most widely used method to assess medication adherence. However, the majority of these were developed in high-income countries (HICs) with a well-established health care system. Their applicability in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) remains unclear. The objective of this study is to systematically review the applicability of content and use of self-reported adherence instruments in LMICs.MethodA scoping review informed by a literature search in Pubmed, EBSCO, and Cochrane databases was conducted to identify studies assessing medication adherence using self-reported instruments for patients with five common chronic diseases [hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, asthma, or Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD)] in LMICs up to January 2022 with no constraints on publication year. Two reviewers performed the study selection process, data extraction and outcomes assessment independently. Outcomes focused on LMIC applicability of the self-reported adherence instruments assessed by (i) containing LMIC relevant adherence content; (ii) methodological quality and (iii) fees for use.FindingsWe identified 181 studies that used self-reported instruments for assessing medication adherence in LMICs. A total of 32 distinct types of self-reported instruments to assess medication adherence were identified. Of these, 14 self-reported instruments were developed in LMICs, while the remaining ones were adapted from self-reported instruments originally developed in HICs. All self-reported adherence instruments in studies included presented diverse potential challenges regarding their applicability in LMICs, included an underrepresentation of LMIC relevant non-adherence reasons, such as financial issues, use of traditional medicines, religious beliefs, lack of communication with healthcare provider, running out of medicine, and access to care. Almost half of included studies showed that the existing self-reported adherence instruments lack sufficient evidence regarding cross cultural validation and internal consistency. In 70% of the studies, fees applied for using the self-reported instruments in LMICs.ConclusionThere seems insufficient emphasis on applicability and methodological rigor of self-reported medication adherence instruments used in LMICs. This presents an opportunity for developing a self-reported adherence instrument that is suitable to health systems and resources in LMICs.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier: CRD42022302215.

Dataset Information

Why are self-medication opportunities limited in Austria? An interview study and comparison with other countries.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Why are self-medication opportunities limited in Austria? An interview study and comparison with other countries.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets