Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32228486›Full record

ArticleBMC geriatrics2020

Medication beliefs and use of medication lists - is there a connection? Results from a before-and-after study in Germany.

Cornelia Straßner, Cornelia Mahler, Beate Strauß, Ulrich Wehrmann, Katja Krug, Joachim Szecsenyi, Walter Emil Haefeli, Hanna Marita Seidling

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC geriatrics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Cornelia StraßnerDepartment of General Practice and Health Services Research, University Hospital Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 130.3, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. cornelia.strassner@med.uni-heidelberg.de.
Cornelia MahlerDepartment of Nursing Science, University Hospital Tuebingen, Institute of Health Sciences, Hoppe-Seyler-Str. 9, 72076, Tuebingen, Germany.
Beate StraußBerchelmann'sche Apotheke, Eberstädter Str. 63, 64319, Pfungstadt, Germany.
Ulrich WehrmannOCM-Consult, Bayernstr. 56, 67061, Ludwigshafen, Germany.
Katja KrugDepartment of General Practice and Health Services Research, University Hospital Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 130.3, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Joachim SzecsenyiDepartment of General Practice and Health Services Research, University Hospital Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 130.3, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Walter Emil HaefeliDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacoepidemiology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 410, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Hanna Marita SeidlingDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacoepidemiology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 410, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.

Funding

AOK Baden-Württemberg not applicableKlaus-Tschira-Stiftung not applicable
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite increasing digitalisation the paper-based medication list remains one of the most important instruments for the documentation and exchange of medication-related information. However, even elderly patients with polypharmacy who are at high risk for medication errors and adverse drug events, frequently do not receive or use a complete and comprehensible medication list. Increasing the use of medication lists would be a great contribution to medication safety and facilitate the work of health care providers.

methodsThis study is related to the project MeinPlan (MyPlan) which comprised an information campaign on safe drug administration in the Rhine-Neckar region in South Germany. The campaign was evaluated in a before-and-after study based on a survey among two independent, representative samples of citizens over 65 years. In total, 5034 questionnaires were analysed. While the effects of the primary outcome (the percentage of citizens using a medication list) have been reported elsewhere, this analysis focusses on the effects of the campaign on citizens' medication beliefs and assesses whether medication beliefs are associated with the use of medication lists, the use of over-the-counter drugs and the use of the tools offered by the campaign. Medication beliefs were assessed with the German version of the General Beliefs About Medicines Questionnaire (BMQ) which results in subscales for "General Overuse", "General Usefulness" and "General Harm". The use of medication lists and over-the-counter drugs was assessed with self-developed questionnaire items.

resultsNo statistically significant change in citizens' medication beliefs before and after the campaign could be detected. Likewise, no association between medication beliefs and the use of medication lists, the use of over-the-counter drugs or the use of the tools offered by the campaign could be shown.

conclusionsA campaign focussing on the risks of drug administration did not change the medication beliefs of the targeted population. Moreover, citizens' general medication beliefs do not seem to be crucial for their decision to use a medication list or over-the-counter drugs. Strategies to improve the use of medication lists by patients should focus on other influential factors, such as individual benefits and barriers and socio-psychological factors.

Indexed as

Nonprescription DrugsPolypharmacyAgedGermanyHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansMedication ErrorsSurveys and QuestionnairesNonprescription DrugsBehaviour changeCampaignMedication beliefsMedication listMedication reconciliationOver-the-counter drugs

Identifiers

PMID32228486
PMCPMC7106800

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.