BACKGROUND: Interventions aimed to increase adherence to drug treatment usually are not tailored to the needs of individual patients. A modular pharmacy intervention, named 'Support for Diabetes', was developed to improve adherence to type 2 diabetes treatment. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the implementation of a new care intervention by using focus groups including pharmacy teams, and assess patient satisfaction. SETTING: Community pharmacies in The Netherlands. METHOD: The intervention comprises a structured patient interview, an intervention guide and modular interventions tailored to the underlying cause of non-adherence. Feasibility was studied in non-adherent type 2 diabetes mellitus patients, and evaluated by means of focus group interviews with pharmacists and pharmacy technicians. Topics included practicability of the patient selection procedure, patient interviews, materials developed for the intervention and general practitioner (GP) co-operation. Patients' experiences (n = 36) were assessed by means of a questionnaire. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Feasibility of the intervention and patients' satisfaction. RESULTS: Pharmacists and pharmacy technicians considered the intervention feasible and appreciated its pro-active approach. Involvement of pharmacy technicians proved a stimulating factor. Poor co-operation with GPs and lack of time as well as financial compensation were interfering factors. Patients appreciated the intervention and reported to follow the advice of pharmacists. CONCLUSION: The 'Support for Diabetes' intervention is feasible to implement in pharmacy practice. Poor co-operation between pharmacists and GPs and lack of re-imbursement are obstructions for implementation on a wider scale. These issues should receive attention of pharmacists, policymakers and researchers.
BACKGROUND: Interventions aimed to increase adherence to drug treatment usually are not tailored to the needs of individual patients. A modular pharmacy intervention, named 'Support for Diabetes', was developed to improve adherence to type 2 diabetes treatment. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the implementation of a new care intervention by using focus groups including pharmacy teams, and assess patient satisfaction. SETTING: Community pharmacies in The Netherlands. METHOD: The intervention comprises a structured patient interview, an intervention guide and modular interventions tailored to the underlying cause of non-adherence. Feasibility was studied in non-adherent type 2 diabetes mellituspatients, and evaluated by means of focus group interviews with pharmacists and pharmacy technicians. Topics included practicability of the patient selection procedure, patient interviews, materials developed for the intervention and general practitioner (GP) co-operation. Patients' experiences (n = 36) were assessed by means of a questionnaire. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Feasibility of the intervention and patients' satisfaction. RESULTS: Pharmacists and pharmacy technicians considered the intervention feasible and appreciated its pro-active approach. Involvement of pharmacy technicians proved a stimulating factor. Poor co-operation with GPs and lack of time as well as financial compensation were interfering factors. Patients appreciated the intervention and reported to follow the advice of pharmacists. CONCLUSION: The 'Support for Diabetes' intervention is feasible to implement in pharmacy practice. Poor co-operation between pharmacists and GPs and lack of re-imbursement are obstructions for implementation on a wider scale. These issues should receive attention of pharmacists, policymakers and researchers.
Authors: P Michael Ho; John S Rumsfeld; Frederick A Masoudi; David L McClure; Mary E Plomondon; John F Steiner; David J Magid Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2006-09-25
Authors: John Sellors; Janusz Kaczorowski; Connie Sellors; Lisa Dolovich; Christel Woodward; Andrew Willan; Ron Goeree; Roxanne Cosby; Kristina Trim; Rolf Sebaldt; Michelle Howard; Linda Hardcastle; Jeff Poston Journal: CMAJ Date: 2003-07-08 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Danielle M van der Laan; Petra J M Elders; Christel C L M Boons; Judith E Bosmans; Giel Nijpels; Jacqueline G Hugtenburg Journal: Trials Date: 2017-01-19 Impact factor: 2.279