Dataset Information

Enhancing Patient Understanding of Medication Risks and Benefits.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To evaluate the effectiveness of 2 interventions, including the DrugFactsBox format for presenting written medication information and the SMART (Strategic Memory Advanced Reasoning Training) program designed to enhance gist (i.e., "bottom-line" meaning) reasoning ability.

Methods

We used a 2 × 2 factorial research design. A total of 286 patients with rheumatoid arthritis were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 groups, including DrugFactsBox with the SMART program, DrugFactsBox without the SMART program, other consumer medication information (CMI) with the SMART program, and other CMI without the SMART program. Data were collected via telephone interviews and online questionnaires at 4 time points, including baseline and 6-week, 3-month, and 6-month time points following baseline. The primary outcome variable was informed decision-making, which was defined as making a value-consistent decision concerning use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs based on adequate knowledge.

Results

We found no main effects for the 2 interventions, either alone or in combination. However, there was a significant interaction between assignment to the SMART/no SMART groups and informed decision-making at baseline. Among participants in the SMART groups who did not meet the criteria for informed decision-making at baseline, 42.5% met the criteria at the 6-month follow-up, compared to 23.6% of participants in the no SMART groups (mean difference 18.9 [95% confidence interval 5.6, 32.2]; P = 0.007). This difference was driven by increased knowledge in the SMART groups. Among participants who met the criteria for informed decision-making at baseline, the difference between the SMART and no SMART groups was not statistically significant.

Conclusion

Participation in a theory-driven program to enhance gist reasoning may have a beneficial effect on informed decision-making among patients with inadequate knowledge concerning therapeutic options.

SUBMITTER: Blalock SJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9305434 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPatient narratives are illustrative, individual accounts of patients' experiences with certain health conditions. Web-based patient narratives have become widely available on the internet and in social media, as part of electronically available patient decision aids or Web-based databases. In recent years, the role of patient narratives as a source of information, insight, and support for both health care users and providers has increasingly been emphasized. Although the potential impact of patient stories has high immediate plausibility, it is of interest to know if this impact can be captured in quantitative studies.ObjectiveThis review aimed to evaluate whether research-generated Web-based patient narratives have quantifiable risks or benefits for (potential) patients, relatives, or health care professionals.MethodsWe searched the following databases from August 2017 to March 2019: Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, PsycInfo, Sociological Abstracts, Web of Science, and EMBASE. Titles and abstracts of the retrieved studies were reviewed and assessed for the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Papers were included if they studied the following: (1) (potential) patients, relatives, or health care professionals; (2) the effects of Web-based patient narratives that were generated scientifically (eg, through qualitative research methods); and (3) were quantitative studies. Furthermore, 2 authors independently performed an assessment of the quality of the included studies using a validated checklist.ResultsOf 4226 documents, 17 studies met the inclusion criteria. The studies investigated 10 different sources of Web-based patient narratives. Sample sizes ranged from 23 to 2458. The mean score of the quality assessment was 82.6 (range 61-100). Effects regarding five different purposes were identified as follows: provide information, engage, model behavior, persuade, and comfort. We found positive effects in every category and negative effects in one category (persuade). Several of the reported effects are rather small or were identified under specific experimental conditions.ConclusionsPatient narratives seem to be a promising means to support users in improving their understanding of certain health conditions and possibly to provide emotional support and have an impact on behavioral changes. There is limited evidence for beneficial effects on some outcomes. However, narratives are characterized by considerable heterogeneity and the investigated outcomes are hardly comparable with each other, which makes the overall judgment difficult. As there are numerous possible measures and purposes of narratives, quantifying the impact of Web-based patient narratives remains a challenge. Future research is needed to define the optimal standards for quantitative approaches to narrative-based interventions.

Project description:In 2009, the Dutch Health Care Inspectorate (IGZ) observed several serious risks to safety involving medication within elderly care facilities. However, by 2011, high risks had been reduced in almost all the organisations we visited. And yet the IGZ analysed too the alarming increase in the number of incidents arising in the self-reported national indicator of medication safety between 2009 and 2010. The aim of this study was to understand the factors that can explain this contradiction between the increase in self-reported medication incidents and the observation of the IGZ in reducing the risks to medication safety through supervision.We interviewed health care professionals of ten care facilities, visited by the IGZ, who were involved in, or responsible for, the improvement of medication safety in their institutions. As outcome measures we used the rate of medication safety risk per facility; the perceptions of the participant with regard to the reports of medication incidents; the level of medication safety of the facility; the measures used to improve medication safety; and the supervision of medication safety. This was a mixed methods study, qualitative in that we used semi-structured interviews, and quantitative, by calculating risks for the different organisations we visited. The findings from both study methods resulted in a comprehensive view and an in-depth understanding of this contradiction.The contradiction between the increase in self-reported medication incidents and the observation of reduced risks was explained by three themes: activities designed to improve medication safety, the reporting of medication incidents, and, lastly, the impact of supervision. The focus of the IGZ on issues of medication safety stimulated most elderly care facilities to reduce medication risks. Also, a change in the culture of reporting incidents caused an increase in the number of reported incidents.Supervision contributed to an improvement in actions geared towards reducing the risks associated with the safety of medication. It also increased a willingness to report such incidents. The more incidents reported are therefore not necessarily a sign of an increase in the risks, but can also be considered as a sign of a safer culture.

Project description:BackgroundHealthcare stakeholders have pronounced both enthusiasm and apprehension over the expanding use of real-world evidence (RWE). The patient community-those who benefit from new treatments but are vulnerable to potential safety risks and whose routine medical encounters are used to generate RWE-has been less vocal. Understanding patient perspectives on the use of RWE to guide clinical decision making and inform regulatory decisions and value assessments is imperative.MethodsWe convened a day-long, multi-stakeholder roundtable in Washington D.C., USA, on 31 July 2017 to gather patient-community views on RWE and related concerns and the communications, information and tools needed by patients to understand, trust, and use RWE. Participants included a convenience sample of National Health Council (NHC) members primarily representing patient groups as well as non-patient members with an interest in RWE. Participants were organized into small, pre-assigned groups, ensuring representativeness across stakeholders and patient leadership. Discussions, including storyboards, notes, and illustrative examples were captured and later analyzed thematically by NHC staff.ResultsTen RWE themes emerged: (1) most patients were unaware of RWE and its actual or potential uses, (2) common definitions for real-world data and RWE are needed, (3) patient organizations need RWE skills and tools, (4) patient-scientist partnerships can help differentiate high-quality RWE, (5) RWE should inform decision making, (6) clinician support is needed for RWE uptake in patient decision making, (7) communications to patients should be balanced and empowering, (8) context of use impacts RWE acceptability/trust, (9) privacy/data ownership require clarity, and (10) patient-generated data are also real-world data (RWD).ConclusionPatients see great possibility in using RWE to understand how a treatment works-to find someone that "looks like me" as assurance of how a treatment might benefit them personally. Patient groups will play a critical role in helping to educate constituents on understanding, contributing to, and using RWE. To maximize patient uptake and the co-development and application of RWE, patient groups require education and tools.

Project description:ObjectiveLimited health literacy negatively impacts understanding of medication-related information. We describe an innovative methodology designed to optimize user understanding of patient medication labeling through the systematic application of evidence-based health literacy principles, using the Patient Package Insert (PPI) for bezlotoxumab (ZINPLAVA™, Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA) as an example.MethodsWe used a mixed-model, iterative approach consisting of three phases: (1) content development; (2) focus group testing; and (3) comprehension testing. Content development was based on evidence-based health literacy principles and conducted through a collaborative partnership between industry and academia professionals. The PPI was then tested in four focus groups, two in Atlanta and two in Chicago, with an emphasis on collecting feedback from respondents with limited health literacy, evaluated using the Newest Vital Sign (NVS) health literacy assessment tool. Subsequent comprehension testing included patients with C. diff, caregivers, and general population members, with a pre-defined target sample of 25% with limited health literacy identified through two health literacy assessment tools: the Single Item Literacy Screener and the NVS.ResultsContent development of the bezlotoxumab PPI occurred in May 2015. In June 2015, focus group respondents (n = 34) provided generally favorable feedback, with insights revolving around organization and usability; language and comprehension; and volume of information. Comprehension testing of the revised PPI resulted in average comprehension scores of 96% for the overall population (n = 59), 90% for individuals presenting with limited health literacy (n = 14), and 97% for those with adequate health literacy (n = 45). This PPI development approach was similarly effective for subsequent products across diverse therapeutic areas, with comprehension scores ≥ 86% for all participants (n = 1197).ConclusionThis methodology represents a significant advancement for the development of understandable patient medication labeling, especially for people with limited health literacy.