scholarly journals Acceptability of offering financial incentives to achieve medication adherence in patients with severe mental illness: a focus group study

2010 ◽  
Vol 36 (8) ◽  
pp. 463-468 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Priebe ◽  
J. Sinclair ◽  
A. Burton ◽  
S. Marougka ◽  
J. Larsen ◽  
...  
2010 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 233-242 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexandra Burton ◽  
Stamatina Marougka ◽  
Stefan Priebe

SUMMARYAim – To identify whether financial or material incentives improve treatment adherence in people with severe mental illness. Method – A systematic review of studies published between 1950 and 2008 was conducted. EMBASE, MEDLINE, EBM, AMED and PsycINFO were searched. Studies were included if a financial or material incentive was offered and if the sample had a severe mental illness. Results – Fourteen articles were identified; three studies on adherence to psychiatric treatment and one on physical exercise. Ten articles used incentives for adherence to substance misuse treatment programmes. In all studies, financial incentives were associated with an increase in adherence; however the effect was not always maintained once the incentive was withdrawn. Conclusion – While existing research suggests that financial incentives may improve treatment adherence in severely mentally ill populations, very few studies focus on psychiatric treatment. Further research may address the long term effectiveness of incentives on adherence in this population.Declaration of Interest: The authors on this paper were supported by funds from the Wellcome Trust. All authors worked on a Wellcome Trust funded qualitative focus group study exploring stakeholder views on offering patients financial incentives to adhere to antipsychotic medication. Priebe is also lead applicant on a National Institute of Health Research (England) (NIHR) awarded grant to conduct a clinical trial on the use of financial incentives to achieve maintenance antipsychotic medication adherence.


2019 ◽  
Vol 70 (3) ◽  
pp. 225-228 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lara N. Schulze ◽  
Ulrike Stentzel ◽  
Jessica Leipert ◽  
Josephine Schulte ◽  
Jens Langosch ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Trine Mechta Nielsen ◽  
Nina Schjerning ◽  
Gudrun Kaldan ◽  
Mads Hornum ◽  
Bo Feldt-Rasmussen ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Medication nonadherence is common among patients with hemodialysis, leading to poorer patient outcomes. Health care professionals have an important role in assessing risk of nonadherence and intervening to support adherence. The aim of this study was to explore physicians’ and nurses’ current medication adherence practices in hemodialysis settings. Method A generic qualitative design with inductive content analysis and focus group methodology. Focus groups with health care professionals were conducted in four Nephrology Centers, representing three different regions of Denmark. An interview guide was developed in collaboration with 3 patient representatives. Results Six focus group interviews involving a total of forty-two health care professionals were conducted. Five main categories were identified; Laboratory tests are the “gold standard” for assessing adherence, suggesting that abnormal results motivated investigation of adherence, Varying practices for supporting adherence, alluding to the impact of individual clinician priority and preference on choice of adherence interventions, Unclear allocation of roles and responsibility, specifically referring to uncertainty in the delegation of roles between physicians and nurses, Navigating time and resource limitations, intimating the resources needed to support medication adherence and Suggestions for future strategies. Conclusions We suggest implementing systematic use of validated patient-reported outcome measures for assessing adherence and deprescribing tools to support adherence, as these instruments might identify the patients who are in most need of support and promote patient adherence to their prescribed medications. The findings also point to a need for interdisciplinary clarification of roles and responsibilities regarding medication adherence, with the aim of building a strong collaborative partnership between professions.


2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Frank Röhricht ◽  
Raguraman Padmanabhan ◽  
Paul Binfield ◽  
Deepa Mavji ◽  
Sally Barlow

Abstract Background Severe mental illness (SMI) is associated with care delivery problems because of the high levels of clinical resources needed to address patient’s psychosocial impairment and to support inclusion in society. Current routine appointment systems do not adequately foster recovery care and are not systematically capturing information suggestive of urgent care needs. This study aimed to assess the feasibility, acceptability, and potential clinical benefits of a mobile technology health management tool to enhance community care for people with severe mental illness. Methods This randomised-controlled feasibility pilot study utilised mixed quantitative (measure on subjective quality of life as primary outcome; questionnaires on self-management skills, medication adherence scale as secondary outcomes) and qualitative (thematic analysis) methodologies. The intervention was a simple interactive technology (Short Message Service - SMS) communication system called ‘Florence’, and had three components: medication and appointment reminders, daily individually defined wellbeing scores and optionally coded request for additional support. Eligible participants (diagnosed with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder or bipolar disorder ≥1 year) were randomised (1:1) to either treatment as usual (TAU, N = 29) or TAU and the technology-assisted intervention (N = 36). Results Preliminary results suggest that the health technology tool appeared to offer a practicable and acceptable intervention for patients with SMI in managing their condition. Recruitment and retention data indicated feasibility, the qualitative analysis identified suggestions for further improvement of the intervention. Patients engaged well and benefited from SMS reminders and from monitoring their individual wellbeing scores; recommendations were made to further personalise the intervention. The care coordinators did not utilise aspects of the intervention per protocol due to a variety of organisational barriers. Quantitative analysis of outcomes (including a patient-reported outcome measure on subjective quality of life, self-efficacy/competence and medication adherence measures) did not identify significant changes between groups over time in favour of the Florence intervention, given high baseline scores. The wellbeing scores, however, were positively correlated with all outcome measures. Conclusion It is feasible to conduct an adequately powered full trial to evaluate this intervention. Inclusion criteria should be revised to include patients with a higher level of need and clinicians should receive more in-depth assistance in managing the tools effectively. The preliminary data suggests that this intervention can aid recovery care and individually defined wellbeing scores are highly predictive of a range of recovery outcomes; they could, therefore, guide the allocation of routine care resources. Trial registration ISRCTN34124141; retrospectively registered, date of registration 05/11/2019.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document