Katie Gallacher1, Carl R May, Victor M Montori, Frances S Mair. 1. Academic Unit of General Practice and Primary Care, Centre for Population and Health Sciences, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Our goal was to assess the burden associated with treatment among patients living with chronic heart failure and to determine whether Normalization Process Theory (NPT) is a useful framework to help describe the components of treatment burden in these patients. METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of qualitative interview data, using framework analysis, informed by NPT, to determine the components of patient "work." Participants were 47 patients with chronic heart failure managed in primary care in the United Kingdom who had participated in an earlier qualitative study about living with this condition. We identified and examined data that fell outside of the coding frame to determine if important concepts or ideas were being missed by using the chosen theoretical framework. RESULTS: We were able to identify and describe components of treatment burden as distinct from illness burden using the framework. Treatment burden in chronic heart failure includes the work of developing an understanding of treatments, interacting with others to organize care, attending appointments, taking medications, enacting lifestyle measures, and appraising treatments. Factors that patients reported as increasing treatment burden included too many medications and appointments, barriers to accessing services, fragmented and poorly organized care, lack of continuity, and inadequate communication between health professionals. Patient "work" that fell outside of the coding frame was exclusively emotional or spiritual in nature. CONCLUSIONS: We identified core components of treatment burden as reported by patients with chronic heart failure. The findings suggest that NPT is a theoretical framework that facilitates understanding of experiences of health care work at the individual, as well as the organizational, level. Although further exploration and patient endorsement are necessary, our findings lay the foundation for a new target for treatment and quality improvement efforts toward patient-centered care.
PURPOSE: Our goal was to assess the burden associated with treatment among patients living with chronic heart failure and to determine whether Normalization Process Theory (NPT) is a useful framework to help describe the components of treatment burden in these patients. METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of qualitative interview data, using framework analysis, informed by NPT, to determine the components of patient "work." Participants were 47 patients with chronic heart failure managed in primary care in the United Kingdom who had participated in an earlier qualitative study about living with this condition. We identified and examined data that fell outside of the coding frame to determine if important concepts or ideas were being missed by using the chosen theoretical framework. RESULTS: We were able to identify and describe components of treatment burden as distinct from illness burden using the framework. Treatment burden in chronic heart failure includes the work of developing an understanding of treatments, interacting with others to organize care, attending appointments, taking medications, enacting lifestyle measures, and appraising treatments. Factors that patients reported as increasing treatment burden included too many medications and appointments, barriers to accessing services, fragmented and poorly organized care, lack of continuity, and inadequate communication between health professionals. Patient "work" that fell outside of the coding frame was exclusively emotional or spiritual in nature. CONCLUSIONS: We identified core components of treatment burden as reported by patients with chronic heart failure. The findings suggest that NPT is a theoretical framework that facilitates understanding of experiences of health care work at the individual, as well as the organizational, level. Although further exploration and patient endorsement are necessary, our findings lay the foundation for a new target for treatment and quality improvement efforts toward patient-centered care.
Authors: Elizabeth A Bayliss; John F Steiner; Douglas H Fernald; Lori A Crane; Deborah S Main Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2003 May-Jun Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Abdullah S Alhurani; Rebecca Dekker; Muayyad Ahmad; Jennifer Miller; Khalil M Yousef; Basel Abdulqader; Ibrahim Salami; Terry A Lennie; David C Randall; Debra K Moser Journal: Heart Lung Date: 2018-04-04 Impact factor: 2.210
Authors: Cynthia M Boyd; Jennifer L Wolff; Erin Giovannetti; Lisa Reider; Carlos Weiss; Qian-li Xue; Bruce Leff; Chad Boult; Travonia Hughes; Cynthia Rand Journal: Med Care Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Bosco Baron-Franco; Gary McLean; Frances S Mair; Veronique L Roger; Bruce Guthrie; Stewart W Mercer Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2017-04-10 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Letitia H Burridge; Michele M Foster; Maria Donald; Jianzhen Zhang; Anthony W Russell; Claire L Jackson Journal: Health Expect Date: 2015-01-07 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Richard Lowrie; Lina Johansson; Paul Forsyth; Stuart Lochhead Bryce; Susan McKellar; Niamh Fitzgerald Journal: Int J Clin Pharm Date: 2013-11-30