ABSTRACT
Parkinson's disease (PD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disease which primarily presents with the core symptoms of rigidity, postural instability, tremor, and bradykinesia. Non-adherence to prescribed PD treatments can have significant ramifications, such as poor symptom control and greater disease burden. Reasons for poor adherence are multifaceted, particularly when medication regimens are complex and often based on perceptual and practical barriers. Additionally, engaging fully non-adherent patients in research is challenging since they may have dropped out of service provision, yet their contribution is vital to fully understand the rationale for non-adherence. This paper aims to present a case study on the perspectives of one person with PD, a participant in a previously published qualitative study investigating the barriers and facilitators to medication adherence in PD. In this paper, the participant's diagnostic journey is described, and experiences of medical consultations are summarised to explain their reasons for not adhering to any of the standard UK PD treatments prescribed. The participant's preferences for using Vitamin B1 (thiamine) injections to manage the symptoms are reported and the rationale for doing so is discussed. We consider the case through the lens of a behavioural science approach, drawing on health psychology theory, the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), to inform the review and the practical challenges faced when analysing the data for this participant. Implications for pharmacy practice, in particular, are also put forward with view to ensuring that patients such as Mr. Wilkinson are provided with the opportunity to discuss treatment choices and self-management of long-term conditions such as PD. We also discuss the importance of reaching under-represented members of the population in medication adherence research, which embraces the principles of equality, diversity, and inclusion in research.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To form a James Lind Alliance (JLA) Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) to determine research priorities related to the cause, diagnosis, treatment and management of pernicious anaemia (PA) from the perspectives of patients, carers and clinicians. DESIGN: The PSP conducted two surveys and a workshop to identify the Top 10 questions for research. A first survey identified questions relating to the cause, diagnosis, treatment and management of PA. A literature search checked whether any of these questions had already been answered. A second survey asked respondents to identify and rank their top 10 questions from the list of questions from the first survey. An online workshop used an adapted nominal group technique to agree a final Top 10. RESULTS: In the first survey, 933 people submitted 3480 responses that were categorised and summarised to generate a long list of 40 questions. None had been answered by previous research. The combined rankings from the 1068 patients, carers and clinicians who took part in the second survey identified a short list of 16 questions. These were discussed at the final workshop to agree the final Top 10. The number one question was about an accurate and reliable diagnostic test for PA. The other nine questions were about making treatment safe and effective, understanding why people with PA vary in their need for treatment, links to other conditions, and how to encourage clinicians to take PA seriously and provide long-term care. CONCLUSIONS: This JLA PSP enabled patients, carers and clinicians to work together to agree the Top 10 uncertainties relating to the cause, diagnosis, management and treatment of PA. Addressing any of these questions will greatly benefit the end-users of research, the people whose daily lives and decisions will be directly affected by generating high quality research evidence.
