医生对药物依从性的评估:一项系统回顾

Heeb Rm, Kreuzberg, Grossmann
{"title":"医生对药物依从性的评估:一项系统回顾","authors":"Heeb Rm, Kreuzberg, Grossmann","doi":"10.4172/2376-0419.1000202","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: Medication adherence and the assessment of patients’ adherence are known to be problematic. There is often a discrepancy between the adherence rate estimated by the physician and the actual adherence rate of the patient. This literature review gives an overview about the published studies investigating physicians’ assessment of patient adherence in comparison to the actual medication adherence. Methods: This review was conducted in compliance with the Grade system in March 2016 and September 2018. Articles included in this review were identified by literature search in Medline and the Cochrane Library. Search terms included patient compliance, physicians, physician-patient relations and assessment. We included every type of study, in German or in English language. Results: Out of 588 results, 41 were included in the review. Due to the language, non-availability of the article or inconsistency with the investigated topic, only 19 studies were evaluated. In most of the studies an overestimation of patients’ adherence by physicians got obvious. Conclusion: Physicians assessed medication adherence of their patients mostly incorrect. They tend to overestimate the medication adherence of patients. Only in mental disorders they tend to underrate. A visual analog scale seems to be a good method to assess physicians’ estimation of patients’ adherence. Patients’ adherence should be measured by directs methods or MEMSTM. Practice implications: For evaluating the non-adherence in patients the physicians have to discuss the medication regimen with the patient and have to ensure the adherence of the patients.","PeriodicalId":16700,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pharmaceutical Care & Health Systems","volume":"29 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Physicians' Assessment of Medication Adherence: A Systematic Review\",\"authors\":\"Heeb Rm, Kreuzberg, Grossmann\",\"doi\":\"10.4172/2376-0419.1000202\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objective: Medication adherence and the assessment of patients’ adherence are known to be problematic. There is often a discrepancy between the adherence rate estimated by the physician and the actual adherence rate of the patient. This literature review gives an overview about the published studies investigating physicians’ assessment of patient adherence in comparison to the actual medication adherence. Methods: This review was conducted in compliance with the Grade system in March 2016 and September 2018. Articles included in this review were identified by literature search in Medline and the Cochrane Library. Search terms included patient compliance, physicians, physician-patient relations and assessment. We included every type of study, in German or in English language. Results: Out of 588 results, 41 were included in the review. Due to the language, non-availability of the article or inconsistency with the investigated topic, only 19 studies were evaluated. In most of the studies an overestimation of patients’ adherence by physicians got obvious. Conclusion: Physicians assessed medication adherence of their patients mostly incorrect. They tend to overestimate the medication adherence of patients. Only in mental disorders they tend to underrate. A visual analog scale seems to be a good method to assess physicians’ estimation of patients’ adherence. Patients’ adherence should be measured by directs methods or MEMSTM. Practice implications: For evaluating the non-adherence in patients the physicians have to discuss the medication regimen with the patient and have to ensure the adherence of the patients.\",\"PeriodicalId\":16700,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Pharmaceutical Care & Health Systems\",\"volume\":\"29 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Pharmaceutical Care & Health Systems\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4172/2376-0419.1000202\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pharmaceutical Care & Health Systems","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4172/2376-0419.1000202","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

目的:药物依从性和患者依从性的评估是已知的问题。医生估计的依从率与患者的实际依从率之间经常存在差异。本文献综述概述了已发表的研究,调查医生对患者依从性的评估与实际药物依从性的比较。方法:本研究于2016年3月和2018年9月按照分级制进行。通过Medline和Cochrane图书馆的文献检索确定纳入本综述的文章。搜索词包括患者依从性、医生、医患关系和评估。我们包括了所有类型的研究,德语或英语。结果:588个结果中,41个纳入综述。由于语言、文章的不可获得性或与调查主题不一致,只有19项研究被评估。在大多数研究中,医生明显高估了患者的依从性。结论:医师对患者药物依从性的评估大多不正确。他们倾向于高估病人的服药依从性。只有在精神疾病中,他们才倾向于低估。视觉模拟量表似乎是评估医生对患者依从性的估计的好方法。患者的依从性应通过指导方法或MEMSTM进行测量。实践启示:为了评估患者的不依从性,医生必须与患者讨论药物治疗方案,并确保患者的依从性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Physicians' Assessment of Medication Adherence: A Systematic Review
Objective: Medication adherence and the assessment of patients’ adherence are known to be problematic. There is often a discrepancy between the adherence rate estimated by the physician and the actual adherence rate of the patient. This literature review gives an overview about the published studies investigating physicians’ assessment of patient adherence in comparison to the actual medication adherence. Methods: This review was conducted in compliance with the Grade system in March 2016 and September 2018. Articles included in this review were identified by literature search in Medline and the Cochrane Library. Search terms included patient compliance, physicians, physician-patient relations and assessment. We included every type of study, in German or in English language. Results: Out of 588 results, 41 were included in the review. Due to the language, non-availability of the article or inconsistency with the investigated topic, only 19 studies were evaluated. In most of the studies an overestimation of patients’ adherence by physicians got obvious. Conclusion: Physicians assessed medication adherence of their patients mostly incorrect. They tend to overestimate the medication adherence of patients. Only in mental disorders they tend to underrate. A visual analog scale seems to be a good method to assess physicians’ estimation of patients’ adherence. Patients’ adherence should be measured by directs methods or MEMSTM. Practice implications: For evaluating the non-adherence in patients the physicians have to discuss the medication regimen with the patient and have to ensure the adherence of the patients.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Public Health in Community Pharmacy Social and Monetary Worth of Portuguese People Group Drug Stores in Medical Care Editorial on Ongoing Advances in Antibacterial Medications Periodontal Sickness a Danger Factor For Serious Covid-19 Ailment The Role of Rubbing Sesame Oil in Improving Chemotherapy InducedPhlebitis in Cancer Patients at Raha Cancer Clinic: Dezful
×
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