M Gil-Girbau1, I Aznar-Lou2, M T Peñarrubia-María3, P Moreno-Peral4, A Fernández5, J Á Bellón6, A M Jové7, J Mendive8, R Fernández-Vergel8, A Figueiras9, M March-Pujol10, M Rubio-Valera11. 1. Research and Development Unit, Institut de Recerca Sant Joan de Déu, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain; School of Pharmacy, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain; Primary Care Prevention and Health Promotion Research Network (REDIAPP), Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain. 2. Research and Development Unit, Institut de Recerca Sant Joan de Déu, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain; Consortium for Biomedical Research in Epidemiology & Public Health (CIBER en Epidemiología y Salud Pública - CIBERESP), Madrid, Spain. 3. Consortium for Biomedical Research in Epidemiology & Public Health (CIBER en Epidemiología y Salud Pública - CIBERESP), Madrid, Spain; Catalan Institute of Health, Barcelona, Spain; Primary Care Research Institute (IDIAP Jordi Gol), Barcelona, Spain. 4. Primary Care Prevention and Health Promotion Research Network (REDIAPP), Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain; Málaga-Guadalhorce Primary Care Disctrict, Málaga, Spain; Institute of Biomedical Research in Malaga (IBIMA), Málaga, Spain. 5. Consortium for Biomedical Research in Epidemiology & Public Health (CIBER en Epidemiología y Salud Pública - CIBERESP), Madrid, Spain; Service of Community Health, Public Health Agency of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. 6. Primary Care Prevention and Health Promotion Research Network (REDIAPP), Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain; Málaga-Guadalhorce Primary Care Disctrict, Málaga, Spain; Institute of Biomedical Research in Malaga (IBIMA), Málaga, Spain; El Palo Health Center, Andalusian Health Service (SAS), Málaga, Spain. 7. Catalan Institute of Health, Barcelona, Spain; Primary Care Research Institute (IDIAP Jordi Gol), Barcelona, Spain. 8. Primary Care Prevention and Health Promotion Research Network (REDIAPP), Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain; Catalan Institute of Health, Barcelona, Spain; Primary Care Research Institute (IDIAP Jordi Gol), Barcelona, Spain. 9. Consortium for Biomedical Research in Epidemiology & Public Health (CIBER en Epidemiología y Salud Pública - CIBERESP), Madrid, Spain; Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, University of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain; Health Research Institute of Santiago de Compostela (IDIS), Santiago de Compostela, Spain. 10. School of Pharmacy, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain; Consortium for Biomedical Research in Epidemiology & Public Health (CIBER en Epidemiología y Salud Pública - CIBERESP), Madrid, Spain. 11. Research and Development Unit, Institut de Recerca Sant Joan de Déu, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain; School of Pharmacy, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain; Consortium for Biomedical Research in Epidemiology & Public Health (CIBER en Epidemiología y Salud Pública - CIBERESP), Madrid, Spain. Electronic address: mrubio@pssjd.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Non-initiation occurs when the doctor prescribes a new pharmacological treatment to a patient who does not fill the prescription. Non-initiation prevalence estimates range between 6% and 28% in Primary Care (PC) and it is associated with poorer clinical outcomes, more sick-leave days and higher costs. To date, the reasons for non-initiation have not been explored using a qualitative framework. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to identify reasons for medication non-initiation among PC patients with distinct treatment profiles (acute, chronic symptomatic and asymptomatic, and mental disorders). METHODS: An exploratory, explanatory qualitative study based on Grounded Theory. We conducted individual semi-structured interviews with 30 PC patients. A constant comparative method of analysis was performed. RESULTS: The results were similar for all therapeutic groups. The decision to initiate treatment is multifactorial. Users make a risk-benefit assessment which is influenced by their beliefs about the pathology and the medication, their emotional reaction, health literacy and cultural factors. The patients' context and relationship with the health system influence decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: The decision to initiate a treatment is strongly influenced by factors that health professionals can discuss with patients. Health professionals should explore patients' beliefs about benefits and risks to help them make informed decisions and promote shared decision-making. General practitioners should ensure that patients understand the benefits and risks of disease and treatment, while explaining alternative treatments, encouraging patients to ask questions and supporting their treatment decisions.
BACKGROUND: Non-initiation occurs when the doctor prescribes a new pharmacological treatment to a patient who does not fill the prescription. Non-initiation prevalence estimates range between 6% and 28% in Primary Care (PC) and it is associated with poorer clinical outcomes, more sick-leave days and higher costs. To date, the reasons for non-initiation have not been explored using a qualitative framework. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to identify reasons for medication non-initiation among PC patients with distinct treatment profiles (acute, chronic symptomatic and asymptomatic, and mental disorders). METHODS: An exploratory, explanatory qualitative study based on Grounded Theory. We conducted individual semi-structured interviews with 30 PC patients. A constant comparative method of analysis was performed. RESULTS: The results were similar for all therapeutic groups. The decision to initiate treatment is multifactorial. Users make a risk-benefit assessment which is influenced by their beliefs about the pathology and the medication, their emotional reaction, health literacy and cultural factors. The patients' context and relationship with the health system influence decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: The decision to initiate a treatment is strongly influenced by factors that health professionals can discuss with patients. Health professionals should explore patients' beliefs about benefits and risks to help them make informed decisions and promote shared decision-making. General practitioners should ensure that patients understand the benefits and risks of disease and treatment, while explaining alternative treatments, encouraging patients to ask questions and supporting their treatment decisions.
Authors: Alba Sánchez-Viñas; Carmen Corral-Partearroyo; Montserrat Gil-Girbau; M Teresa Peñarrubia-María; Carmen Gallardo-González; María-Del-Carmen Olmos-Palenzuela; Ignacio Aznar-Lou; Antoni Serrano-Blanco; Maria Rubio-Valera Journal: BMC Prim Care Date: 2022-07-05
Authors: Carles Vilaplana-Carnerero; Ignacio Aznar-Lou; María Teresa Peñarrubia-María; Antoni Serrano-Blanco; Rita Fernández-Vergel; Dolors Petitbò-Antúnez; Montserrat Gil-Girbau; Marian March-Pujol; Juan Manuel Mendive; Alba Sánchez-Viñas; Cristina Carbonell-Duacastella; Maria Rubio-Valera Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-05-12 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Rocío Zamanillo-Campos; Maria Jesús Serrano-Ripoll; Joana Maria Taltavull-Aparicio; Elena Gervilla-García; Joana Ripoll; Maria Antonia Fiol-deRoque; Anne-Marie Boylan; Ignacio Ricci-Cabello Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-02-08 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Michael J Miller; Tzuchen Jou; Maria I Danila; Amy S Mudano; Elizabeth J Rahn; Ryan C Outman; Kenneth G Saag Journal: Res Social Adm Pharm Date: 2020-09-20
Authors: Kai Qi Elizabeth Peh; Yu Heng Kwan; Hendra Goh; Hasna Ramchandani; Jie Kie Phang; Zhui Ying Lim; Dionne Hui Fang Loh; Truls Østbye; Dan V Blalock; Sungwon Yoon; Hayden Barry Bosworth; Lian Leng Low; Julian Thumboo Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2021-03-03 Impact factor: 5.128