Initial medication non-adherence: prevalence and predictive factors in a cohort of 1.6 million primary care patients.

AIMS: Adherence to medicines is vital in treating diseases. Initial medication non-adherence (IMNA) - defined as not obtaining a medication the first time it is prescribed - has been poorly explored. Previous studies show IMNA rates between 6 and 28% in primary care (PC). The aims of this study were to determine prevalence and predictive factors of IMNA in the most prescribed and expensive pharmacotherapeutic groups in the Catalan health system. METHODS: This is a retrospective, register-based cohort study which linked the Catalan PC System (Spain) prescription and invoicing databases. Medication was considered non-initiated when it was not collected from the pharmacy by the end of the month following the one in which it was prescribed. IMNA prevalence was calculated using July 2013-June 2014 prescription data. Predictive factors related to patients, general practitioners and PC centres were identified through multilevel logistic regression analyses. Missing data were attributed using simple imputation. RESULTS: Some 1.6 million patients with 2.9 million prescriptions were included in the study sample. Total IMNA prevalence was 17.6% of prescriptions. The highest IMNA rate was observed in anilides (22.6%) and the lowest in angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors (7.4%). Predictors of IMNA are younger age, American nationality, having a pain-related or mental disorder and being treated by a substitute/resident general practitioner in a resident-training centre. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of IMNA is high when all medications are taken into account. Attempts to strengthen trust in resident general practitioners and improve motivation to initiate a needed medication in the general young and older immigrant population should be addressed in Catalan PC.

Perceptions of collaboration between general practitioners and community pharmacists: findings from a qualitative study based in Spain.

According to the theory of reasoned action (TRA), collaboration is only possible when it is perceived as useful by the participants involved. This paper describes a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews to explore the preceived usefulness of general practitioner (GPs)-community pharmacists (CPs)' collaboration from these professionals' perspectives based in two Spanish regions. Thirty-seven interviews were conducted with GPs and CPs with and without previous experience of collaborating with the other groups of professionals. Analysis of the data indicated that the GPs and CPs considered that collaboration between practitioners and pharmacists to have different forms of usefulness, ranging from positive to negative perceptions of usefulness. Negative and neutral opinions (collaboration generates conflict and/or is not benefitial) could prevent practitioners from initiating collaboration with the other group of professionals, which is explained by the TRA. These perceptions were only found among those participants without experience in collaboration. When collaboration was perceived as advantageous, it could be beneficial on three levels: health system (i.e. provision of integrated care, increased efficiency of the system), GPs and CPs (i.e. increased job satisfaction and patient loyalty) and patients (i.e. improved patient safety). Although GPs and CPs with experience identified benefits using a range of examples, GPs and CPs who had never collaborated also believed that if collaboration was undertaken there would be benefits for the health system, patients and health professionals. These results should be considered when developing strategies to encourage and improve the implementation of collaborative working relationships between GPs and pharmacists in primary care.

Factors affecting collaboration between general practitioners and community pharmacists: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Although general practitioners (GPs) and community pharmacists (CPs) are encouraged to collaborate, a true collaborative relationship does not exist between them. Our objective was to identify and analyze factors affecting GP-CP collaboration. METHODS: This was a descriptive-exploratory qualitative study carried out in two Spanish regions: Catalonia (Barcelona) and Balearic Islands (Mallorca). Face-to-face semi-structured interviews were conducted with GPs and CPs from Barcelona and Mallorca (January 2010-February 2011). Analysis was conducted using Colaizzi's method. RESULTS: Thirty-seven interviews were conducted. The factors affecting the relationship were different depending on timing: 1) Before collaboration had started (prior to collaboration) and 2) Once the collaboration had been initiated (during collaboration). Prior to collaboration, four key factors were found to affect it: the perception of usefulness; the Primary Care Health Center (PCHC) manager's interest; the professionals' attitude; and geography and legislation. These factors were affected by economic and organizational aspects (i.e. resources or PCHC management styles) and by professionals' opinions and beliefs (i.e. perception of the existence of a public-private conflict). During collaboration, the achievement of objectives and the changes in the PCHC management were the key factors influencing continued collaboration. The most relevant differences between regions were due to the existence of privately-managed PCHCs in Barcelona that facilitated the implementation of collaboration. In comparison with the group with experience in collaboration, some professionals without experience reported a skeptical attitude towards it, reporting that it might not be necessary. CONCLUSIONS: Factors related to economic issues, management and practitioners' attitudes and perceptions might be crucial for triggering collaboration. Interventions and strategies derived from these identified factors could be applied to achieve multidisciplinary collaboration.