Development and validation of the BMQ-AIR©: a screening tool for assessing patients' treatment beliefs about switching to anti-inflammatory reliever (AIR) therapy.

Introduction: Despite anti-inflammatory reliever (AIR) therapy now being the preferred treatment choice across all severities of asthma, many patients are still "attached" to their short-acting beta2-agonist (SABA) reliever, believing this to be the best way to control their asthma. To encourage individuals to switch to AIR, it is important to first identify the beliefs that patients hold about AIR. Objective: The aim of this paper was to describe the initial development and validation of the BMQ-AIR©, a six-item screening tool which assesses and identifies patients' treatment beliefs about switching to AIR therapy. Methods: Statements were identified from the primary literature that assessed patients' perceptions of AIR therapy and adapted from the Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire (BMQ). Internal reliability was examined using Cronbach's alpha coefficient. Construct validity was evaluated by comparing scores on BMQ-AIR© with a validated measure of medication adherence and SABA beliefs. Results: A total of 446 participants completed the online survey. The BMQ-AIR© contained two subscales with three items each. Both the Necessity and Concerns subscales demonstrated good internal reliability, with Cronbach's α-values of 0.70 and 0.69, respectively. Both subscales were negatively correlated with self-report inhaled corticosteroid adherence (Necessity: r = -0.28, p < 0.0001; Concerns: r = -0.28, p < 0.0001) and positively correlated with SRQ scores (Necessity: r = 0.51, p < 0.0001; Concerns: r = 0.44, p < 0.0001). Conclusion: Preliminary findings indicate that BMQ-AIR© demonstrates satisfactory reliability and validity. BMQ-AIR© is a promising tool that may help tailor interventions to an individual's specific beliefs and barriers to switching to better support individuals in stopping SABA and initiating AIR therapy.

Understanding patient demand for and use of antibiotics for upper respiratory tract infection: A qualitative application of the Necessity-Concerns Framework in Saudi Arabia.

Background: Reducing antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a priority for public health. Inappropriate patient demand is an important driver of unnecessary antibiotic use. To develop an effective intervention to reduce inappropriate demand for antibiotics in upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs), it is important to identify patient perceptions that influence demand for, and appropriate use of antibiotics. Aim: To identify and describe the beliefs about antibiotics necessity and concerns that patients with URTIs have, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Method: An exploratory qualitative approach was used. One-to-one, face-to-face or telephone semi-structured interviews were conducted with participants recruited using purposive sampling (based on age and gender) from primary healthcare centre in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia were conducted. Only adult patients who currently experience URTIs symptoms and agreed to participate were recruited. Recruitment for interviews continued until data saturation point was reached. The interview guide explored patients' necessity beliefs and concerns about antibiotics, AMR perceptions, and expectations from URTIs consultation. Interview transcripts were coded using QSR NVivo 12 using framework analysis informed by the Necessity-Concerns Framework to identify key motivations driving antibiotic requests and consultations. Results: the study interviewed 32 participants (44% were male, average age was 36.84). Results identified that the patients often relate their personal need for antibiotics when encountering an URTIs symptoms to the type, severity and duration of symptoms. Patients also linked antibiotics with quicker recovery, generally expressing few concerns about antibiotics mainly because of its short duration of use. However, some conveyed their concern about frequent administration of antibiotics and effect on the body's immune system function, which may make them more prone to infections in the future. Participants varied widely in their awareness of AMR; this was associated with many misconceptions, such as confusing AMR with antibiotics efficacy and tolerance. Interestingly, the interplay between necessity beliefs and concerns was observed to influence the decision to start and stop antibiotic, potentially impacting inappropriate antibiotic demand and unnecessary use. Conclusion: This study highlighted important beliefs and misconceptions about antibiotics and AMR in Saudi population which can be targeted in future interventions to reduce inappropriate demand for antibiotics and optimise appropriate usage.

Evaluating the Feasibility of a Community Pharmacy-Delivered Behaviour Change Intervention to Reduce Reliever Reliance in Asthma.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of a community pharmacy-delivered intervention to shift patients' beliefs about short-acting beta2 agonists (SABA) in asthma management. The study targeted individual beliefs about SABA and assessed actual SABA use, focusing on reducing SABA use as well as adherence to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) as a preventive measure. Patients and Methods: This non-randomized, before-and-after feasibility study enrolled participants with asthma from four community pharmacies in Auckland, New Zealand. Eligible participants were aged 18 years and above and were prescribed a SABA for their asthma. The intervention included the SABA reliance questionnaire to determine the degree of SABA reliance, verbal discussions with pharmacists personalised according to the degree of SABA reliance identified, and referral to general practitioners as appropriate. Results: Of the 44 patients who consented into the study, 19 were in the control group and 16 in the intervention group. Recruitment and retention were modest, with 10 control and five intervention participants completing the 90-day follow-up. Although not statistically significant, preliminary results indicated reduced SABA reliance and increased ICS adherence in the intervention group, and reduced SABA refill. Feedback showed that 78% of intervention participants found the information easy to understand, and 56% expressed intent to consult their general practitioners. Pharmacy staff found the intervention feasible but noted time constraints as a barrier to intervention delivery. Conclusion: The study demonstrates that a community pharmacy-delivered intervention is feasible and acceptable to both patients and pharmacists. While preliminary results show a positive effect on reducing SABA reliance and improvement of ICS adherence, the results were not statistically significant due to the small numbers recruited. This suggests a larger randomised trial is indicated. This intervention holds promise for addressing the over-reliance on SABA in asthma management and improving adherence to preventive therapies.

Psychometric properties of the Spanish SABA Reliance Questionnaire (SRQ) among patients with asthma.

Background: Patient beliefs about their asthma and its treatment may contribute to overreliance on short-acting ß2-agonist (SABA) therapy, leading to increased risk for potentially life-threatening exacerbations. The SABA Reliance Questionnaire (SRQ) is a validated tool for evaluating patients beliefs about SABAs that may lead to overreliance and overuse. Objective: Our aim was to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the SRQ. Methods: This was an observational, cross-sectional, single-country questionnaire validation study in adults with asthma. Reliability (ordinal α) and validity (convergent and discriminant) of SRQ were evaluated. Concurrent validity was assessed with the Beliefs about Medication Questionnaire, the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication, and a visual analog scale item to assess patients' perceptions of the importance of their reliever inhaler. Discriminant validity was assessed through differences in mean SRQ sum score between patients with high adherence to inhaled corticosteroids and those with low adherence, as measured by the Medication Adherence Report Scale-9 and the Test of Adherence to Inhalers. Results: The Spanish-SRQ exhibited good psychometric properties among 131 patients with asthma. Internal consistency was confirmed with an ordinal α of 0.85. All 5 items were useful for measuring patients' beliefs about SABAs that may lead them to be overreliant on SABAs. Concurrent validity with the Beliefs about Medication Questionnaire, Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication, and a visual analog scale item assessing patients' perceptions of the importance of their reliever inhaler was demonstrated. Conclusion: The Spanish version of the SRQ is a valid tool for evaluating potential overreliance on SABAs in Spanish-speaking patients to enable early intervention and support.

The impact of hospital-based post-discharge pharmacist medication review on patient clinical outcomes: A systematic review.

Background: Clinical pharmacists have been shown to identify and resolve medication related problems post-discharge, however the impact on patient clinical outcomes is unclear. Aims: To undertake a systematic review to identify, critically appraise and present the evidence on post-discharge hospital clinics that provide clinical pharmacist medication review; report the patient clinical outcomes measured; and describe the activities of the clinical pharmacist. Methods: Published studies evaluating a patient clinical outcome following a post-discharge hospital clinic pharmacy service were included. All studies needed a comparative design (intervention vs control or comparator). Pubmed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycnINFO, Web of Science, IPA and APAIS-Health databases were searched to identify studies. The type of clinic and the clinical pharmacist activities were linked to patient clinical outcomes. Results: Fifty-seven studies were included in the final analysis, 14 randomised controlled trials and 43 non-randomised studies. Three key clinic types were identified: post-discharge pharmacist review alone, inpatient care plus post-discharge review and post-discharge collaborative clinics. The three main outcome metrics identified were hospital readmission and/or representation, adverse events and improved disease state metrics. There was often a mix of these outcomes reported as primary and secondary outcomes. High heterogeneity of interventions and clinical pharmacist activities reported meant it was difficult to link clinical pharmacist activities with the outcomes reported. Conclusions: A post-discharge clinic pharmacist may improve patient clinical outcomes such as hospital readmission and representation rates. Future research needs to provide a clearer description of the clinical pharmacist activities provided in both arms of comparative studies.

Enhanced primary care after hospitalization: General practitioner, pharmacist and patient feedback from the REMAIN HOME trial.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacist and general practitioner (GP) collaborative models of care are continuing to evolve in the Australian primary care setting. The REMAIN HOME study investigated whether a pharmacist integrated into 14 different primary care teams in general practice (the "practice pharmacist model") reduces readmission to hospital for patients prescribed five or more long term medicines or high risk comorbidities. The aim of this paper is to describe the attitudes of GPs, patients, and practice pharmacists towards this model of pharmacist and GP collaboration. METHODS: To explore the views and opinions about the model of care (pharmacist integration into general practice), participating GPs were invited to complete a survey that included the 13-item validated Attitudes Toward Collaboration Instrument for GPs (ATCI-GP) one month after the pharmacist had been integrated into the practice. Survey instruments were also created for patients and pharmacist participating in the intervention. These were deployed after the initial consultation and at the end of the intervention period respectively, to elicit each stakeholders' views and experiences of the service. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: In total, 48 GPs, 43/101 patients (43%) and 11/13 practice pharmacists (85%) completed the survey. The majority of GPs strongly agreed or agreed with all statements of the ATCI-GP, indicating support for the practice-integrated pharmacist model. Most patients agreed that there was a role for a pharmacist in their general practice (n = 28, 76%), and that they would like to see the pharmacist again (n = 34, 79%). Pharmacists indicated that they enjoyed the role (n = 11, 91%) and found the position professionally satisfying (n = 9, 82%). Most pharmacists agreed that co-location (inside the general practice itself, rather than in a co-located pharmacy) was beneficial (n = 8, 73%) and all pharmacists (100%) acknowledged the benefits of having access to patient medical records. Free text comments from GPs were enthusiastic overall, although some concerns about the financial viability of the model in the current setting were raised. The primary limitation of the study is the anonymous nature of the survey, meaning clustering of responses across the 14 sites could not be determined. CONCLUSIONS: A practice pharmacist model of care in the Australian primary care setting appears to be accepted by GPs, patients and practice pharmacists and provides promising evidence that this model of care is likely to be well accepted if implemented more broadly in the Australian healthcare setting, provided that it can be appropriately remunerated.

Effect of electronic adherence monitoring on adherence and outcomes in chronic conditions: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Electronic adherence monitoring (EAM) is increasingly used to improve adherence. However, there is limited evidence on the effect of EAM in across chronic conditions and on patient acceptability. We aimed to assess the effect of EAM on adherence and clinical outcomes, across all ages and all chronic conditions, and examine acceptability in this systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: A systematic search of Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Social Work Abstracts, PsycINFO, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts and CINAHL databases was performed from database inception to December 31, 2020. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effect of EAM on medication adherence as part of an adherence intervention in chronic conditions were included. Study characteristics, differences in adherence and clinical outcomes between intervention and control were extracted from each study. Estimates were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis, and presented as mean differences, standardised mean differences (SMD) or risk ratios depending on the data. Differences by study-level characteristics were estimated using subgroup meta-analysis to identify intervention characteristics associated with improved adherence. Effects on adherence and clinical outcomes which could not be meta-analysed, and patient acceptability, were synthesised narratively. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guideline was followed, and Risk of bias (RoB) assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's RoB tool for RCTs. The review is registered with PROSPERO CRD42017084231. FINDINGS: Our search identified 365 studies, of which 47 studies involving 6194 patients were included. Data from 27 studies (n = 2584) were extracted for the adherence outcome. The intervention group (n = 1267) had significantly better adherence compared to control (n = 1317), (SMD = 0.93, CI:0.69 to 1.17, p<0.0001) with high heterogeneity across studies (I2 = 86%). There was a significant difference in effect according to intervention complexity (p = 0.01); EAM only improved adherence when used with a reminder and/or health provider support. Clinical outcomes were measured in 38/47 (81%) of studies; of these data from 14 studies were included in a meta-analysis of clinical outcomes for HIV, hypertension and asthma. In total, 13/47 (28%) studies assessed acceptability; patient perceptions were mixed. INTERPRETATION: Patients receiving an EAM intervention had significantly better adherence than those who did not, but improved adherence did not consistently translate into clinical benefits. Acceptability data were mixed. Further research measuring effects on clinical outcomes and patient acceptability are needed.

Features of successful interventions to improve adherence to inhaled corticosteroids in children with asthma: A narrative systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Nonadherence to inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) in children with asthma leads to significant morbidity and mortality. Few adherence interventions have been effective and little is known about what contributes to intervention effectiveness. This systematic review summarizes the efficacy and the characteristics of effective interventions. METHODS: Six databases were systematically searched on October 3, 2020 for randomized control trials measuring adherence to ICS in children with asthma. A narrative synthesis was conducted focusing on intervention efficacy and study reliability. Intervention content was coded based on the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines for medicines adherence (the Perceptions and Practicalities Approach, PAPA) and behavior change techniques (BCTs), to determine the effective aspects of the intervention. RESULTS: Of 240 studies identified, 25 were eligible for inclusion. Thirteen of the 25 studies were categorized as being highly reliable. Nine of the 13 interventions were effective at increasing adherence and 6 of those met the criteria for a PAPA intervention. Techniques targeting perceptions and practicalities in successful interventions included rewards, reminders, feedback and monitoring of adherence, pharmacological support, instruction on how to take their ICS/adhere, and information about triggers for symptoms and nonadherence. CONCLUSION: Adherence interventions in children with asthma have mixed effectiveness. Effective intervention studies were more frequently of higher quality, were tailored to individuals' perceptual and practical adherence barriers, and used multiple BCTs. However, due to the small number of included studies and varying study design quality, conclusions drawn here are preliminary. Future research is needed to test a PAPA-based intervention with a rigorous study design.

Impact of pharmacist and physician collaborations in primary care on reducing readmission to hospital: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Readmissions to hospital due to medication-related problems are common and may be preventable. Pharmacists act to optimise use of medicines during care transitions from hospital to community. OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of pharmacist-led interventions, which include communication with a primary care physician (PCP) on reducing hospital readmissions. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL and Web of Science were searched for articles published from inception to March 2021 that described interventions involving a pharmacist interacting with a PCP in regards to medication management of patients recently discharged from hospital. The primary outcome was effect on all-cause readmission expressed as Mantel-Haenszel risk ratio (RR) derived from applying a random effects model to pooled data. Sensitivity analysis was also conducted to investigate differences between randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs. The GRADE system was applied in rating the quality of evidence and certainty in the estimates of effect. RESULTS: In total, 37 studies were included (16 RCTs and 29 non-RCTs). Compared to control patients, the proportion of intervention patients readmitted at least once was significantly reduced by 13% (RR = 0.87, CI:0.79-0.97, p = 0.01; low to very low certainty of evidence) over follow-up periods of variable duration in all studies combined, and by 22% (RR = 0.78, CI:0.67-0.92; low certainty of evidence) at 30 day follow-up across studies reporting this time point. Analysis of data from RCTs only showed no significant reduction in readmissions (RR = 0.92, CI:0.80-1.06; low certainty of evidence). CONCLUSIONS: The totality of evidence suggests pharmacist-led interventions with PCP communication are effective in reducing readmissions, especially at 30 days follow-up. Future studies need to adopt more rigorous study designs and apply well-defined patient eligibility criteria.

Reducing Medical Admissions and Presentations Into Hospital through Optimising Medicines (REMAIN HOME): a stepped wedge, cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether integrating pharmacists into general practices reduces the number of unplanned re-admissions of patients recently discharged from hospital. DESIGN, SETTING: Stepped wedge, cluster randomised trial in 14 general practices in southeast Queensland. PARTICIPANTS: Adults discharged from one of seven study hospitals during the seven days preceding recruitment (22 May 2017 - 14 March 2018) and prescribed five or more long term medicines, or having a primary discharge diagnosis of congestive heart failure or exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. INTERVENTION: Comprehensive face-to-face medicine management consultation with an integrated practice pharmacist within seven days of discharge, followed by a consultation with their general practitioner and further pharmacist consultations as needed. MAJOR OUTCOMES: Rates of unplanned, all-cause hospital re-admissions and emergency department (ED) presentations 12 months after hospital discharge; incremental net difference in overall costs. RESULTS: By 12 months, there had been 282 re-admissions among 177 control patients (incidence rate [IR], 1.65 per person-year) and 136 among 129 intervention patients (IR, 1.09 per person-year; fully adjusted IR ratio [IRR], 0.79; 95% CI, 0.52-1.18). ED presentation incidence (fully adjusted IRR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.22-0.94) and combined re-admission and ED presentation incidence (fully adjusted IRR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.48-0.99) were significantly lower for intervention patients. The estimated incremental net cost benefit of the intervention was $5072 per patient, with a benefit-cost ratio of 31:1. CONCLUSION: A collaborative pharmacist-GP model of post-hospital discharge medicines management can reduce the incidence of hospital re-admissions and ED presentations, achieving substantial cost savings to the health system. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12616001627448 (prospective).

Better understanding the influence and complexity of beliefs on medication adherence in asthma.

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to better understand how beliefs influence medication adherence in asthma. METHODS: All participants were prescribed an inhaled corticosteroid for a diagnosis of asthma. Each participant completed a survey consisting of: Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire (BMQ), Brief-Illness Perception Questionnaire (B-IPQ) and Multi-dimensional Health Locus of Control Scale (MHLCS). Adherence to inhaled corticosteroids was elicited using the Medication Adherence Report Scale (MARS). Multiple linear regression with interaction effects was used to identify significant predictors of medication adherence and interactions between beliefs. RESULTS: A total of 198 participants completed the survey. The mean(±SD) MARS score was 19.2(±4.5). A multivariable model (adjusted R2 = 0.39) predicted adherence using: age, asthma hospitalisation, timeline (B-IPQ) subscale, necessity and concern (BMQ) subscales, doctor (MHLCS) subscale and the two interaction effects (concerns [BMQ] moderated by chance [MHLCS] and treatment control [B-IPQ] moderated by understanding [B-IPQ]). CONCLUSION: The findings of this study contribute to a better understanding of the role of beliefs in medication adherence in asthma. Certain beliefs meaningfully interrelate and change the relationship they have with medication adherence. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: If these beliefs are causally related to medication adherence and can be intervened upon, the findings are useful for providing targets to personalise adherence support.

Reducing Medical Admissions into Hospital through Optimising Medicines (REMAIN HOME) Study: protocol for a stepped-wedge, cluster-randomised trial.

INTRODUCTION: A model of general practitioner (GP) and pharmacist collaboration in primary care may be an effective strategy to reduce medication-related problems and provide better support to patients after discharge. The aim of this study is to investigate whether a model of structured pharmacist and GP care reduces hospital readmissions in high-risk patients. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol details a stepped-wedge, cluster-randomised trial that will recruit participants over 9 months with a 12-month follow-up. There will be 14 clusters each representing a different general practice medical centre. A total of 2240 participants will be recruited from hospital who attend an enrolled medical centre, take five or more long-term medicines or whose reason for admission was related to heart failure or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.The intervention is a multifaceted service, involving a pharmacist integrated into a medical centre to assist patients after hospitalisation. Participants will meet with the practice pharmacist and their GP after discharge to review and reconcile their medicines and discuss changes made in hospital. The pharmacist will follow-up with the participant and liaise with other health professionals involved in the participant's care. The control will be usual care, which usually involves a patient self-organising a visit to their GP after hospital discharge.The primary outcome is the rate of unplanned, all-cause hospital readmissions over 12 months, which will be analysed using a mixed effects Poisson regression model with a random effect for cluster and a fixed effect to account for any temporal trend. A cost analysis will be undertaken to compare the healthcare costs associated with the intervention to those of usual care. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has received ethical approval (HREC/16/QRBW/410). The study findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conferences and reports to key stakeholders. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12616001627448.

The necessity-concerns framework predicts adherence to medication in multiple illness conditions: A meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This meta-analysis investigated whether beliefs in the necessity and concerns of medicine and the necessity-concerns differential are correlated with medication adherence on a population level and in different conditions. METHODS: An electronic search of Web of Science, EMBASE, PubMed and CINAHL was conducted for manuscripts utilising the Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire and comparing it to any measure of medication adherence. Studies were pooled using the random-effects model to produce a mean overall effect size correlation. Studies were stratified for condition, adherence measure, power and study design. RESULTS: Ninety-four papers were included in the meta-analysis. The overall effect size(r) for necessity, concerns, and necessity-concerns differential was 0.17, -0.18 and 0.24 respectively and these were all significant (p<0.0001). Effect size for necessity was stronger in asthma and weaker in the cardiovascular group compared to the overall effect size. CONCLUSION: Necessity and concerns beliefs and the necessity-concerns differential were correlated with medication adherence on a population level and across the majority of included conditions. The effect sizes were mostly small with a magnitude comparable to other predictors of adherence. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: This meta-analysis suggests that necessity and concern beliefs about medicines are one important factor to consider when understanding reasons for non-adherence.