Medication Management Strategies to Support Medication Adherence: Interview Study With Older Adults
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Home medication management has been insufficiently studied, including the factors that impact the development and effectiveness of adherence strategies under both routine and anomalous circumstances. Older adults are a particularly important population to study due to the greater likelihood of taking medication in combination with the desire to "age in place." OBJECTIVE: This interview study aims to understand how older adults develop medication management strategies, identify when and why such strategies succeed or fail, learn more about how older adults think about their medication, and explore interventions that increase medication adherence. METHODS: This study used a qualitative, semistructured interview design to elicit older adults' experiences with home medication management. Overall, 22 participants aged ≥50 years taking 1 to 3 prescription medications were recruited and interviewed. Interview responses were recorded, and thematic, qualitative analysis was performed by reviewing recordings and identifying recurring patterns and themes. Responses were systematically coded, which not only facilitated the identification of these themes but also allowed us to quantify the prevalence of behaviors and perceptions, providing a robust understanding of medication management and medication adherence. RESULTS: Participants reported developing home medication management strategies on their own, with none of the participants receiving guidance from health care providers and 59% (13/22) of the participants using trial and error. The strategies developed by study participants were all unique and generally encompassed prescription medication and vitamins or supplements, with no demarcation between what was prescribed or recommended by a physician and what they selected independently. Participants thought about their medications by their chemical name (10/22, 45%), by the appearance of the pill (8/22, 36%), by the medication's purpose (2/22, 9%), or by the medication's generic name (2/22, 9%). Pill cases (17/22, 77%) were more popular than prescription bottles (5/22, 23%) for storage of daily medication. Most participants (19/22, 86%) stored their pill cases or prescription bottles in visible locations in the home, and those using pill cases varied in their refill routines. Participants used ≥2 routines or objects as triggers to take their medication. Nonadherence was associated with a disruption to their routine. Finally, only 14% (3/22) of the participants used a time-based reminder or alarm, and none of the participants used a medication adherence device or app. CONCLUSIONS: Participants in our study varied considerably in their home medication management strategies and developed unique routines to remember to take their medication as well as to refill their pill cases. To reduce trial and error in establishing a strategy, there are opportunities for physicians and pharmacists to provide adherence guidance to older adults. To minimize the impact of disruptions on adherence, there are opportunities to develop more durable strategies and to design aids to medication adherence that leverage established daily routines.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,008 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,015 | 0,002 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».