ArticlePatient preference and adherence2016
Patients' handling of a standardized medication plan: a pilot study and method development.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Designing and Implementation of a Digitalized Intersectoral Discharge Management System and Its Effect on Readmissions: Mixed Methods Approach.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Patients' Use of a Standardized Medication List - A Mixed Methods Study.Patient preference and adherence · 2023Article
- Quality of care for people with multimorbidity: a focus group study with patients and their relatives.BMJ open · 2021Article
- Medication beliefs and use of medication lists - is there a connection? Results from a before-and-after study in Germany.BMC geriatrics · 2020Article
- Development of Comprehensible Prescription Label Instructions: A Study Protocol for a Mixed-Methods Approach.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2020Article
- Humanistic outcomes and patient acceptance of the pharmacist-led medication review "Polymedication Check" in primary care in Switzerland: a prospective randomized controlled trial.Patient preference and adherence · 2018Article
- How to meet patients' individual needs for drug information - a scoping review.Patient preference and adherence · 2018Article
- Evaluating patients' comprehensibility of a standardized medication plan.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2016Article
- Adherence to tamoxifen in breast cancer patients: What role does the pharmacist play in German primary care?Canadian pharmacists journal : CPJ = Revue des pharmaciens du Canada : RPCArticle
- 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe 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. PATIENTS AND
methodsWe 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.
resultsOverall, 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.
conclusionThe 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.