Search

Objective To examine the effect on adherence to disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in participants with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) of a serious game that targeted implicit attitudes toward medication. Methods A multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) was performed with adults with RA that used DMARDs and possessed a smartphone/tablet. Control and intervention groups received care as usual. The intervention group played the serious game at will during 3 months. Game play data and online questionnaires Compliance Questionnaire on Rheumatology (CQR), Beliefs about Medicine Questionnaire (BMQ), Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) and Rheumatoid Arthritis Disease Activity Index (RADAI) were collected. Primary outcome was DMARD implementation adherence operationalised as the difference in proportion of non-adherent participants (<80% taking adherence) between intervention and control group after 3 months using a Chi-squared test. Two sample t-tests and Wilcoxon rank-sum test were performed to test for differences on secondary outcomes. Results Of the 110 intervention participants that started the study, 87 participants (79%) installed the game and had a median playtime of 9.7 hours at 3 months. Overall, 186 participants completed the study. Adherence in intervention group (63%) and control group (54%) did not differ significantly (p=0.13) at 3 months. Neither were there differences oberved in CQR continuous score, beliefs about medication (BMQ) or clinical outcomes (HAQ and RADAI). Conclusion A serious game aimed at reinterpreting attitudes toward medication failed to show an effect on adherence to DMARDs or clinical outcomes in patients with RA. The game was played frequently indicating that it can be an effective channel for reaching patients. Trial registration number NL7217. Data are available upon reasonable request. The data underlying this article will be shared on reasonable request to the corresponding author.

Background Systematically registering ADRs in electronic health records (EHRs) likely contribute to patient safety as it enables the exchange of drug safety data. Currently, ADRs registrations by healthcare professionals (HCPs) is suboptimal. This study aimed to identify barriers and facilitators perceived by HCPs to register ADRs systematically in EHRs. Research Design and Methods A qualitative study with individual interviews was conducted among specialist physicians and hospital pharmacists from 10 different Dutch hospitals. A semi-structured interview guide was used to identify experienced barriers and facilitators for systematically registering ADRs. Data was analyzed following thematic analysis. Themes within barriers and facilitators were aligned with the Capability–Opportunity-Motivation–Behavior (COM-B) framework. Results In total, 16 HCPs were interviewed. Identified barriers were: lack of knowledge to recognize ADRs, time constraints, inadequate IT system, lack of support, stuck in routine, and not recognizing the importance of registering ADRs. Identified facilitators were: enhanced knowledge and awareness of ADRs, functional IT systems, expanding accountability for registration, and motivation toward registering. Conclusions Barriers and facilitators for registering spanned all aspects of the COM-B model and occurred in individual, social and environmental domains. Addressing these aspects could improve the registration of ADRs and may contribute to patient safety.

This chapter is based on discussions at a workshop at the Nordic Social Pharmacy Conference in 2019, named How do we know it’s good? A workshop on quality criteria in qualitative social and clinical pharmacy research. After an introduction, the chapter continues with a glance at two different epistemologies. Thereafter, reflections on the challenges that many social pharmacy researchers meet as they come from a natural science background into qualitative research are presented. Specific aspects presented and discussed are: methodological and disciplinary competence and insecurity, reflexivity, transparency, checklists, quality criteria, sample size, and saturation.

A methodological debate within social pharmacy is ongoing regarding how to apply a qualitative approach. This paper emanates from a workshop at the Nordic Social Pharmacy Conference in 2019, named ‘How do we know it's good? A workshop on quality criteria in qualitative social and clinical pharmacy research’, that addressed this debate. The aim of this paper is twofold (1) to present the main key points raised during the workshop and (2) based on these inputs to contribute to the ongoing discussion on qualitative methodology within social pharmacy research. This paper starts with what was discussed at the workshop and further elaborated are some of the challenges with conducting qualitative research within social pharmacy. These include methodological and disciplinary competence and insecurity, reflections on the consequences of that many social pharmacy researchers come from a natural science background and how this (possibly) shapes the practice of qualitative research within the field. For example, how concepts like transparency and saturation, together with checklists and quality criteria are understood and used. Finally, we make suggestions for the next step for qualitative research in social pharmacy.

BACKGROUND: Redispensing unused medications that have been returned to outpatient pharmacies by patients may reduce waste and healthcare costs. However, little is known regarding the extra costs associated with this process, nor the price level of medications for which this is economically beneficial. The objective of this study was to assess costs associated with redispensing unused medications in the pharmacy and the price level at which redispensing becomes cost-beneficial.METHODS: A micro-costing study was conducted in four Dutch outpatient pharmacies for medications requiring room-temperature storage and requiring refrigeration. First, the pharmacy's necessary additional process steps and resources for redispensing were identified. Second, time required for each process step was simulated. Third, required resources were quantified by calculating labour, purchasing and overhead costs. Lastly, a model with different scenarios was constructed to calculate the price of a medication package at which redispensing becomes cost-beneficial.RESULTS: Three main additional process steps for redispensing were identified: (1) pack medications with product quality indicators before dispensing, (2) assess quality of medications returned to the pharmacy (temperature storage, package integrity, expiry date) and (3a) restock medications fulfilling quality criteria or (3b) dispose of medications not fulfilling criteria. Total time required for all steps up to restock one medication package was on average 5.3 (SD ±0.3) and 6.8 (SD ±0.3) minutes for medications stored at room-temperature and under refrigeration, respectively, and associated costs were €5.54 and €7.61. Similar outcomes were found if a medication package would ultimately be disposed of. The price level primarily depended upon the proportion of dispensed packages returned unused to the pharmacy and fulfilling the quality criteria: if 5% is returned, of which 60% fulfils quality criteria, the price leve