Patients' knowledge of the indications for their medications - a scoping review.

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES BMC Health Services Research Pub Date : 2024-10-08 DOI:10.1186/s12913-024-11685-7
Cille Bülow, Stine Søndersted Clausen, Patrick Lundholm Thøgersen, Dagmar Abelone Dalin, Johanne Mølby Hansen, Karl Sebastian Johansson, Andreas Lundh, Mikkel Bring Christensen
{"title":"Patients' knowledge of the indications for their medications - a scoping review.","authors":"Cille Bülow, Stine Søndersted Clausen, Patrick Lundholm Thøgersen, Dagmar Abelone Dalin, Johanne Mølby Hansen, Karl Sebastian Johansson, Andreas Lundh, Mikkel Bring Christensen","doi":"10.1186/s12913-024-11685-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Inadequate medication knowledge may contribute to inappropriate medication use and treatment harms. We aimed to map and synthesise the existing evidence on patients' knowledge of the indications for their medications.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsychInfo and the Cochrane Library for studies that assessed patients' knowledge of the indications for their medications from inception to June 16, 2022. A pair of reviewers independently screened and extracted data on study characteristics, aims, and methods used to assess and report patients' knowledge of the indications for their medications.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 99 studies conducted in 33 countries, published between 1979 and 2021, with 42,377 participants in total (median 126 participants [Interquartile range: 63-338]). Studies were observational (n = 77), experimental (n = 18), or qualitative interviews (n = 4). The exact question used to assess knowledge of the indications was reported in 27 studies and was phrased in 25 different ways. Knowledge of the indications was reported as a proportion of either 1) all participants (n = 65) or 2) the total number of medications used by all patients (n = 13). Sixteen studies used both reporting methods, while five only reported a proportion without specifying the denominator. Fourteen studies in various populations reported the number of participants with correct knowledge of all their medications, ranging from 19% (long-term psychiatric in-patients) to 87% (general practice patients).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We did not identify any established scientific standard for assessing patients' knowledge of the indications for their medications. The wide range of study methodologies and reporting styles observed call for a methodological consensus in this research field. Estimates of correct knowledge varied widely between studies, but whether this was due to differences in study populations or study methodology could not be determined. Furthermore, we did not identify any study investigating whether participants' knowledge of the indications for their medications was associated with the quality, e.g. appropriateness, of their treatment.</p>","PeriodicalId":9012,"journal":{"name":"BMC Health Services Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11460199/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Health Services Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11685-7","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Inadequate medication knowledge may contribute to inappropriate medication use and treatment harms. We aimed to map and synthesise the existing evidence on patients' knowledge of the indications for their medications.

Method: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsychInfo and the Cochrane Library for studies that assessed patients' knowledge of the indications for their medications from inception to June 16, 2022. A pair of reviewers independently screened and extracted data on study characteristics, aims, and methods used to assess and report patients' knowledge of the indications for their medications.

Results: We included 99 studies conducted in 33 countries, published between 1979 and 2021, with 42,377 participants in total (median 126 participants [Interquartile range: 63-338]). Studies were observational (n = 77), experimental (n = 18), or qualitative interviews (n = 4). The exact question used to assess knowledge of the indications was reported in 27 studies and was phrased in 25 different ways. Knowledge of the indications was reported as a proportion of either 1) all participants (n = 65) or 2) the total number of medications used by all patients (n = 13). Sixteen studies used both reporting methods, while five only reported a proportion without specifying the denominator. Fourteen studies in various populations reported the number of participants with correct knowledge of all their medications, ranging from 19% (long-term psychiatric in-patients) to 87% (general practice patients).

Conclusion: We did not identify any established scientific standard for assessing patients' knowledge of the indications for their medications. The wide range of study methodologies and reporting styles observed call for a methodological consensus in this research field. Estimates of correct knowledge varied widely between studies, but whether this was due to differences in study populations or study methodology could not be determined. Furthermore, we did not identify any study investigating whether participants' knowledge of the indications for their medications was associated with the quality, e.g. appropriateness, of their treatment.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
患者对其药物适应症的了解--范围综述。
背景:用药知识不足可能会导致用药不当和治疗伤害。我们旨在绘制并综合现有证据,以了解患者对其药物适应症的了解情况:我们在 MEDLINE、Embase、CINAHL、PsychInfo 和 Cochrane 图书馆中检索了从开始到 2022 年 6 月 16 日评估患者对其用药适应症的了解程度的研究。一对审稿人独立筛选并提取了有关研究特征、目的以及用于评估和报告患者对其用药适应症的了解程度的方法的数据:我们纳入了在 33 个国家开展的 99 项研究,这些研究发表于 1979 年至 2021 年之间,共有 42,377 人参与(中位数为 126 人[四分位数范围:63-338])。研究为观察性研究(77 项)、实验性研究(18 项)或定性访谈研究(4 项)。用于评估适应症知识的确切问题在 27 项研究中有所报道,有 25 种不同的表述方式。对适应症的了解程度以 1) 所有参与者(n = 65)或 2) 所有患者使用药物总数(n = 13)的比例进行报告。有 16 项研究同时使用了这两种报告方法,有 5 项研究只报告了比例而未说明分母。14项针对不同人群的研究报告了正确了解所有药物的参与者人数,从19%(长期精神病住院患者)到87%(全科患者)不等:我们没有找到任何既定的科学标准来评估患者对其药物适应症的了解程度。研究方法和报告方式的多样性要求在这一研究领域达成方法上的共识。不同研究对患者正确用药知识的估计值差异很大,但无法确定这是否是由于研究人群或研究方法的不同造成的。此外,我们没有发现任何研究调查了参与者对药物适应症的了解是否与治疗质量(如适当性)有关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Health Services Research
BMC Health Services Research 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
7.10%
发文量
1372
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: BMC Health Services Research is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of health services research, including delivery of care, management of health services, assessment of healthcare needs, measurement of outcomes, allocation of healthcare resources, evaluation of different health markets and health services organizations, international comparative analysis of health systems, health economics and the impact of health policies and regulations.
期刊最新文献
Employer support for health and social care registered professionals, their patients and service users involved in regulatory fitness to practise regulatory proceedings. Factors influencing the turnover intention for disease control and prevention workers in Northeast China: an empirical analysis based on logistic-ISM model. Qualitative drivers of postoperative prophylactic antibiotics use and resistance in Ethiopia. Supporting young people through the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond: a multi-site qualitative longitudinal study. The potential promise and pitfalls of point-of-care viral load monitoring to expedite HIV treatment decision-making in rural Uganda: a qualitative study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1