Literature DB >> 19883342

Does point-of-care testing lead to the same or better adherence to medication? A randomised controlled trial: the PoCT in General Practice Trial.

Angela Gialamas1, Lisa N Yelland, Philip Ryan, Kristyn Willson, Caroline O Laurence, Tanya K Bubner, Philip Tideman, Justin J Beilby.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical effectiveness of point-of-care testing (PoCT) with that of pathology laboratory testing, as measured by patients' adherence to medication.
DESIGN: Multicentre, cluster randomised controlled trial using non-inferiority analysis. Medication adherence was assessed twice (in April 2006 and January 2007) by a self-administered questionnaire using the five-item Medication Adherence Report Scale (MARS-5).
SETTING: 53 Australian general practices in urban, rural and remote areas across three Australian states, September 2005 to February 2007. PARTICIPANTS: 4968 patients with established type 1 or type 2 diabetes, established hyperlipidaemia, or requiring anticoagulant therapy were recruited to the study. Of these, 4381 were included in the analysis (2585 in the intervention group and 1796 in the control group). INTERVENTION: The intervention group (3010 patients in 30 practices) had blood and urine samples tested using PoCT devices within their general practices. The control group (1958 patients in 23 practices) had samples tested by their usual pathology laboratories. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The proportion of questionnaire responses indicating medication adherence overall and by condition.
RESULTS: PoCT was non-inferior to pathology laboratory testing in relation to the proportion of questionnaire responses indicating medication adherence (39.3% v 37.0%) (difference, 2.3% [90% CL, - 0.1%, 4.6%]; P < 0.001). Non-inferiority could also be concluded separately for patients with diabetes (38.5% v 37.3%) (difference, 1.2% [90% CL, -2.5%, 5.0%]; P = 0.01); hyperlipidaemia (38.3% v 37.3%) (difference, 1.0% [90% CL, -1.5%, 3.5%]; P < 0.001) and for patients requiring anticoagulant therapy (44.5% v 41.4%) (difference, 3.1% [90% CL, -2.1%, 8.3%]; P = 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: Having access to immediate test results through PoCT is associated with the same or better medication adherence compared with having test results provided by a pathology laboratory. PoCT used in general practice can provide general practitioners and patients with timely and complete clinical information, facilitating important self-management behaviours such as medication adherence. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN 12605000272695.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19883342     DOI: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2009.tb02910.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med J Aust        ISSN: 0025-729X            Impact factor:   7.738


  22 in total

1.  Point-of-care testing for the analysis of lipid panels: primary care diagnostic technology update.

Authors:  Annette Plüddemann; Matthew Thompson; Christopher P Price; Jane Wolstenholme; Carl Heneghan
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 5.386

2.  Near-patient testing holds most promise for acute conditions.

Authors:  Jochen W L Cals; Geert-Jan Geersing
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 5.386

3.  Implementation of HbA1c Point of Care Testing in 3 German Medical Practices: Impact on Workflow and Physician, Staff, and Patient Satisfaction.

Authors:  Karl-Heinz Patzer; Payam Ardjomand; Katharina Göhring; Guido Klempt; Andreas Patzelt; Markus Redzich; Mathias Zebrowski; Susanne Emmerich; Oliver Schnell
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2018-03-13

4.  Patient satisfaction with point-of-care testing in general practice.

Authors:  Caroline O Laurence; Angela Gialamas; Tanya Bubner; Lisa Yelland; Kristyn Willson; Phil Ryan; Justin Beilby
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 5.386

Review 5.  Interventions for enhancing medication adherence.

Authors:  Robby Nieuwlaat; Nancy Wilczynski; Tamara Navarro; Nicholas Hobson; Rebecca Jeffery; Arun Keepanasseril; Thomas Agoritsas; Niraj Mistry; Alfonso Iorio; Susan Jack; Bhairavi Sivaramalingam; Emma Iserman; Reem A Mustafa; Dawn Jedraszewski; Chris Cotoi; R Brian Haynes
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2014-11-20

6.  Identification of patients at risk of non-adherence to oral antirheumatic drugs in rheumatoid arthritis using the Compliance Questionnaire in Rheumatology: an ARCO sub-study.

Authors:  Carlos Marras; Indalecio Monteagudo; Georgina Salvador; Francisco J de Toro; Alejandro Escudero; Juan J Alegre-Sancho; Enrique Raya; Ana Ortiz; Loreto Carmona; Yvonne Mestre; Luis Cea-Calvo; Jaime Calvo-Alén
Journal:  Rheumatol Int       Date:  2017-05-17       Impact factor: 2.631

7.  Effective interventions to improve medication adherence in Type 2 diabetes: a systematic review.

Authors:  Joni L Strom Williams; Rebekah J Walker; Brittany L Smalls; Jennifer A Campbell; Leonard E Egede
Journal:  Diabetes Manag (Lond)       Date:  2014-01-01

8.  Rationale and design of the Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Study (LAAOS) III.

Authors:  Richard Whitlock; Jeff Healey; Jessica Vincent; Kate Brady; Kevin Teoh; Alistair Royse; Pallav Shah; Yingqiang Guo; Marco Alings; Richard J Folkeringa; Domenico Paparella; Andrea Colli; Steven R Meyer; Jean-François Legare; François Lamontagne; Wilko Reents; Andreas Böning; Stuart Connolly
Journal:  Ann Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2014-01

Review 9.  Screening with urinary dipsticks for reducing morbidity and mortality.

Authors:  Lasse T Krogsbøll; Karsten Juhl Jørgensen; Peter C Gøtzsche
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2015-01-28

10.  Comparing the diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care lateral flow antigen testing for SARS-CoV-2 with RT-PCR in primary care (REAP-2).

Authors:  Werner Leber; Oliver Lammel; Andrea Siebenhofer; Monika Redlberger-Fritz; Jasmina Panovska-Griffiths; Thomas Czypionka
Journal:  EClinicalMedicine       Date:  2021-07-13
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.