ArticlePatient preference and adherence2023
Patients' Use of a Standardized Medication List - A Mixed Methods Study.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Continuity of medication information transfer and continuous medication supply during hospital-to-home transitions - nationwide surveys in hospital and community pharmacies after implementing new legal requirements in Germany.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- A newly developed algorithm for switching outpatient medications to medications listed in the hospital formulary: a prospective real-word evaluation in patients admitted electively to hospital.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2024Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: A medication list (ML) is a document listing the patient's entire medication, instructions for use, and indications. In Germany, a national standard was established in 2016 by law. However, data on patients' use of this standardized ML are scarce. We investigated (i) patients' practical use of the ML, (ii) patients' understanding of the ML, (iii) completeness and correctness of the current ML version, and (iv) reasons why patients did not adhere to their ML. Patients and Methods: Community pharmacists recruited patients possessing a standardized ML with ≥5 medications. Information sources to evaluate the ML were: (a) brown bag analysis, (b) practical demonstration, (c) patient interview, and (d) patient file. Data were analyzed using qualitative and quantitative methods. Results: Two hundred and eighty-eight patients (median age: 76 years, range: 27-95) were enrolled. (i) 38.5% of the patients used their ML regularly to prepare their medication and 73.3% to inform their physician. (ii) Overall, patients' understanding of the ML was good, with >80% of the patients being able to identify all relevant information. (iii) While n = 2779 medications were actually taken, n = 2539 were documented on the ML. No ML was fully correct and complete. Regarding particularly relevant items, ie, active ingredient, strength, dosage, medication missing or listed but not taken, 79.2% of ML were incorrect or incomplete. Handwritten modifications on the ML were frequent. (iv) Almost 60% of all patients did not follow their ML with "fear of adverse drug reactions" being the most frequently (n = 50) mentioned reason. Conclusion: Completeness and correctness of the current ML version was poor with handwritten modifications being frequent. Additionally, most of the patients did not adhere to their ML. This indicates that measures that lead to correct and up-to-date ML and improvements in patient counseling about their medication should be developed and implemented into routine practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.