Trial reportHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2020
Exploring patient and pharmacist perspectives on complex interventions for cardiovascular prevention: A qualitative descriptive process evaluation.
Trial report in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Communication Processes Related to Decision-Making in Medication Management Between Healthcare Providers, Older People and Their Carers: A Systematic Review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Pooled it
- Exploring patient and pharmacist perspectives on complex interventions for cardiovascular prevention: A qualitative descriptive process evaluation.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020Trial
- Exploring patient perspectives on the impact of resuming cost sharing: a qualitative analysis.Trials · 2024Article
- Article
- Experiences of an Online Palliative Rehabilitation Programme for Spousal Caregivers of People With Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis and Cognitive and/or Behavioural Impairments: A Qualitative Interpretive Study.Advances in rehabilitation science and practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Assessing outcomes of enhanced Chronic disease Care through patient Education and a value-baSed formulary Study (ACCESS) is a randomized controlled trial evaluating two interventions targeting barriers to care among those at high risk of cardiovascular disease: copayment elimination for cardioprotective medications, and a tailored self-management support programme. We designed a process evaluation to better understand participant perspectives on the interventions.
designWe used a qualitative descriptive study design, collecting patient and pharmacist feedback via individual semi-structured telephone interviews and in-person focus groups. Data were analysed inductively using thematic analysis.
resultsFifty-three patients (39 interviews and 14 in two focus groups) and 20 pharmacists participated. Copayment elimination provided quality of life benefits: minimizing the need to 'cut-back', allowing 'peace of mind' and providing emotional support. Health-related benefits included: improving adherence to covered medications, and helping to afford non-covered goods. The only criticism was that not all medications and testing supplies were covered. Patients reported that the educational materials provided helpful information, acted as a reminder, improved confidence, improved adherence to medication, and helped initiate conversations with providers about indicated medication. Some participants felt that the educational materials were repetitive, overly medication-focused and not tailored enough. Pharmacists felt that their patients benefitted from both interventions, which improved patient adherence and communication with their patients.
conclusionThe success of interventions intended to change behaviour is largely dependent upon participant's feelings that the intervention is helpful. This process evaluation provided insights into participants' perceptions on these interventions. Reception of both was largely positive with a few criticisms noted.
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.