| Title |
Patients’ handling of a standardized medication plan: a pilot study and method development
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Patient preference and adherence, April 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ppa.s96431 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lea Botermann, Katrin Krueger, Christiane Eickhoff, Charlotte Kloft, Martin Schulz |
| Abstract |
The Action Plan for Medication Safety by the German Federal Ministry of Health introduced a standardized medication plan (MP), a printable document for the patient. The practical handling needs to be tested before the nationwide implementation in Germany. Therefore, the aims of our study were 1) to develop an instrument to evaluate the usage of the standardized MP, 2) to assess if patients can locate, and 3) understand important information. Moreover, we explored patients' opinion and suggestions regarding the standardized MP template. We conducted a cross-sectional study to evaluate the practical handling of the standardized MP. We interviewed 40 adult patients in seven community pharmacies in Germany, who took at least five medicines regularly and gave their written informed consent. The interview consisted of questions regarding finding and understanding information provided on a mock-up MP, patients' opinion and the execution of the information on the MP by filling pill boxes. We eventually developed a new evaluation method to quantify the practical handling of the MP by rating the pill boxes filled by the patients. Overall, the participants rated the MP positively. Thirty-nine (98%) participants found important information on a mock-up standardized MP. Patients were questioned to identify if they understood information on medical intake as it relates to meals. In particular, they were questioned about medicine intake "1 hour before a meal", which 98% (n=39) interpreted correctly, and "during a meal", which 100% (n=40) interpreted correctly. The less precise advice of "before a meal" was interpreted correctly by 73% (n=29), and only 15% (n=6) correctly interpreted the term "after the meal". The evaluation of the filled pill boxes resulted in the "Evaluation Tool to test the handling of the Medication Plan" (ET-MP) - a weighted scoring system. The standardized MP is clearly arranged, and patients are able to find important information. The findings of this study resulted in minor but important revisions of the standardized MP template. The developed evaluation tool ET-MP may serve as an objective instrument to assess patients' ability to transfer written information on the MP into practical handling of medicines. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 32 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 9% |
| Researcher | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 4 | 13% |
| Unknown | 11 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 5 | 16% |
| Psychology | 5 | 16% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 6% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Unknown | 14 | 44% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 October 2023.
All research outputs
#3,583,518
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#216
of 1,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,159
of 314,723 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#11
of 72 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,757 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 314,723 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 72 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.