RESUMEN
The way consumers get and seek health information reflects the current information landscape. To gather updated insights on consumer experiences with and attitudes towards direct-to-consumer (DTC) promotion of prescription drugs, we conducted a nationally representative survey of 1,744 US adults using a mail-push-to-web methodology with paper nonresponse follow-up. Results showed high exposure and indifferent attitudes to DTC promotion. Respondents reported DTC promotion has prompted action, particularly searches for more information, increased use of online resources, and some reported that they refused to take or stopped taking a prescription drug because they saw or heard about the drug's side effects.
Asunto(s)
Efectos Colaterales y Reacciones Adversas Relacionados con Medicamentos , Medicamentos bajo Prescripción , Adulto , Publicidad , Actitud , Humanos , Encuestas y CuestionariosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising is prevalent and affects patient care. Previous research that examined its effect on the patient-provider relationship predates many changes in the advertising and medical landscape that have occurred in the last decade, such as the rise in online promotion and the push for value-based medicine. METHODS: We conducted a nationally representative mail-push-to-web survey of 1744 US adults in 2017 to explore how patients view the effects of direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising on patient-provider interactions. RESULTS: Most respondents (76%) said they were likely to ask a health care provider about advertised drugs; 26% said they had already done so. Among the 26% of respondents who talked to a health care provider about a specific prescription drug they saw advertised, 16% said they received a prescription for the advertised drug. Few respondents (5%) reported that advertising had caused conflict with a health care provider, 16% said it had caused them to question their provider's advice, and 23% said they were likely to look for a different provider if their provider refused to prescribe a requested brand name drug. DISCUSSION: These results suggest that direct-to-consumer advertising is driving some patients to discuss specific products with their health care providers but that most patients do not believe advertising has a negative influence on the patient-provider interaction itself.
Asunto(s)
Publicidad Directa al Consumidor , Medicamentos bajo Prescripción , Adulto , Publicidad , Industria Farmacéutica , Prescripciones de Medicamentos , Humanos , Encuestas y CuestionariosRESUMEN
PURPOSE: Misperceptions of how the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates prescription drugs may affect how consumers assess the safety and efficacy of prescription drugs. The study objective was to survey the public on their knowledge of FDA oversight regarding prescription drug approval and advertising. METHODS: In 2017, we conducted a nationally representative mail-push-to-web survey with 1,744 US adults. RESULTS: Although most respondents (86%) knew that FDA approves prescription drugs, we found misperceptions about what that approval means. In addition, few respondents understood FDA oversight of prescription drug advertising, with approximately half of respondents reporting that they did not know whether FDA approved these ads or components of the ads, and several mis-reporting that FDA approves these ads (31%) or components of the ads (22%-41%). CONCLUSIONS: Enhanced collaboration and communication with the public by key stakeholders in this space could increase public understanding of the roles and responsibilities of FDA.
Asunto(s)
Participación de la Comunidad/psicología , Aprobación de Drogas/legislación & jurisprudencia , Conocimientos, Actitudes y Práctica en Salud , Medicamentos bajo Prescripción/normas , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , United States Food and Drug Administration/legislación & jurisprudencia , Participación de la Comunidad/métodos , Humanos , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Diabetes is predicted to increase in incidence by 42% from 1995 to 2025. Although most adults with diabetes seek care from primary care practices, adherence to treatment guidelines in these settings is not optimal. Many practices lack the infrastructure to monitor patient adherence to recommended treatment and are slow to implement changes critical for effective management of patients with chronic conditions. Supporting Practices to Adopt Registry-Based Care (SPARC) will evaluate effectiveness and sustainability of a low-cost intervention designed to support work process change in primary care practices and enhance focus on population-based care through implementation of a diabetes registry. METHODS: SPARC is a two-armed randomized controlled trial (RCT) of 30 primary care practices in the Virginia Ambulatory Care Outcomes Research Network (ACORN). Participating practices (including control groups) will be introduced to population health concepts and tools for work process redesign and registry adoption at a meeting of practice-level implementation champions. Practices randomized to the intervention will be assigned study peer mentors, receive a list of specific milestones, and have access to a physician informaticist. Peer mentors are clinicians who successfully implemented registries in their practices and will help champions in the intervention practices throughout the implementation process. During the first year, peer mentors will contact intervention practices monthly and visit them quarterly. Control group practices will not receive support or guidance for registry implementation. We will use a mixed-methods explanatory sequential design to guide collection of medical record, participant observation, and semistructured interview data in control and intervention practices at baseline, 12 months, and 24 months. We will use grounded theory and a template-guided approach using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to analyze qualitative data on contextual factors related to registry adoption. We will assess intervention effectiveness by comparing changes in patient-level hemoglobin A1c scores from baseline to year 1 between intervention and control practices. DISCUSSION: Findings will enhance our understanding of how to leverage existing practice resources to improve diabetes care in primary care practices by implementing and using a registry. SPARC has the potential to validate the effectiveness of low-cost implementation strategies that target practice change in primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02318108.
Asunto(s)
Diabetes Mellitus/terapia , Adhesión a Directriz , Atención Primaria de Salud/métodos , Sistema de Registros , Adulto , Protocolos Clínicos , Humanos , Atención Primaria de Salud/normas , Mejoramiento de la Calidad , Sistema de Registros/estadística & datos numéricosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Evidence-based preventive services for early detection of cancer and other health conditions offer profound health benefits, yet Americans receive only half of indicated services. Policy initiatives promote the adoption of information technologies to engage patients in care. We developed a theory-driven interactive preventive health record (IPHR) to engage patients in health promotion. The model defines five levels of functionality: (1) collecting patient information, (2) integrating with electronic health records (EHRs), (3) translating information into lay language, (4) providing individualized, guideline-based clinical recommendations, and (5) facilitating patient action. It is hypothesized that personal health records (PHRs) with these higher levels of functionality will inform and activate patients in ways that simpler PHRs cannot. However, realizing this vision requires both technological advances and effective implementation based upon clinician and practice engagement. METHODS/DESIGN: We are starting a two-phase, mixed-method trial to evaluate whether the IPHR is scalable across a large number of practices and how its uptake differs for minority and disadvantaged patients. In phase 1, 40 practices from three practice-based research networks will be randomized to add IPHR functionality to their PHR versus continue to use their existing PHR. Throughout the study, we will engage intervention practices to locally tailor IPHR content and learn how to integrate new functions into their practice workflow. In phase 2, the IPHR to all nonintervention practices to observe whether the IPHR can be implemented more broadly (Scalability). Phase 1 will feature an implementation assessment in intervention practices, based on the RE-AIM model, to measure Reach (creation of IPHR accounts by patients), Adoption (practice decision to use the IPHR), Implementation (consistency, fidelity, barriers, and facilitators of use), and Maintenance (sustained use). The incremental effect of the IPHR on receipt of cancer screening tests and shared decision-making compared to traditional PHRs will assess Effectiveness. In phase 2, we will assess similar outcomes as phase 1 except for effectiveness. DISCUSSION: This study will yield information about the effectiveness of new health information technologies designed to actively engage patients in their care as well as information about how to effectively implement and disseminate PHRs by engaging clinicians. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02138448.
Asunto(s)
Registros Electrónicos de Salud , Promoción de la Salud/métodos , Adulto , Anciano , Análisis por Conglomerados , Difusión de Innovaciones , Diagnóstico Precoz , Estudios de Factibilidad , Femenino , Accesibilidad a los Servicios de Salud , Disparidades en Atención de Salud , Humanos , Masculino , Informática Médica , Persona de Mediana Edad , Atención Dirigida al Paciente/métodos , Atención Primaria de Salud/organización & administración , VirginiaRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: We describe the implementation and experience with adding an obstetric-specific medical emergency team (called Condition O for obstetric crisis) to an existing rapid response system at Magee-Womens Hospital. STUDY DESIGN: In response to deficits identified during patient safety review of adverse obstetric events in 2004 and 2005, the hospital administration decided to add a crisis team with expertise specifically designed for maternal and/or fetal crises. RESULTS: During the first 6 months, staff rarely called Condition O (14 per 10,000 obstetric admissions). After reeducation efforts, use of Condition O increased to 62 per 10,000 obstetric admissions during 2006. CONCLUSION: We outline our hospital's experience with implementation, efforts to address low utilization, and 1.5 years of Condition O event data. Condition O is a work in progress. In light of this, we discuss the challenges of measuring its patient safety outcome, considerations for team size and composition, and our efforts to determine an optimal Condition O rate.