Patients' perspectives and experiences regarding medication reviews: A cross-sectional survey study

TL;DR

This study explores how patients view medication reviews and finds that most value them, though awareness is low and improvements in shared decision-making and follow-up are needed.

Contribution

The study provides novel insights into patient perspectives on medication reviews and highlights the need for better implementation of shared decision-making and multidisciplinary approaches.

Findings

Most patients value medication reviews, but only about half are aware of them.

Patients prioritize discussing medication appropriateness and risks over practical issues.

Hyperpolypharmacy patients more frequently report improvements in follow-up agreements and multidisciplinary approaches.

Abstract

Medication reviews are conducted worldwide to reduce medication-related problems. However, real-world patient perspectives and experiences remain underexplored. This study aimed to explore patients' perspectives and experiences regarding medication reviews and to assess differences across levels of polypharmacy.

A cross-sectional online survey was conducted among a panel of Dutch pharmacy visitors. Topics included perspectives and experiences regarding medication reviews. Descriptive statistics were used, and Chi-square tests were used to assess differences between levels of polypharmacy (non-polypharmacy: 1–4 medications; polypharmacy: 5–9 medications; hyperpolypharmacy: ≥10 medications).

Among 4395 respondents (median age: 71; 43 % female), 48 % were aware of the existence of medication reviews, and 85 % deemed these important. Patients valued discussing the appropriateness, efficacy, side-effects, and risks of medication more than practical medication-related issues. These perspectives were consistent across polypharmacy levels. Overall, 1176 patients (27 %) had experienced a review (non-polypharmacy: 22 %; polypharmacy: 29 %; hyperpolypharmacy: 39 %). Of these, 92 % felt able to ask questions, and 62 % felt treatment options were sufficiently discussed. Patients reported that their review resulted in better medication understanding (68 %), increased confidence in medication usage (65 %), and fewer health issues (40 %). Patients with non-polypharmacy reported improvements in follow-up agreements (9 %) and involvement of secondary healthcare providers (11 %) less frequently than those with polypharmacy (14 %/15 %) and hyperpolypharmacy (19 %/26 %).

Most patients valued medication reviews, yet only half were aware of their existence. Generally, levels of polypharmacy hardly impacted patient perspectives. Based on patients' experiences, shared decision-making, follow-ups, and multidisciplinary approaches could be better implemented in medication reviews.

•Patients value medication reviews, although only half of them were aware that these services exist.•Patient perspectives are largely consistent over different levels of polypharmacy.•Patients prioritize appropriateness, efficacy, side-effects, and risk of medicines over practical use issues.•Better shared decision-making, follow-up agreements, and a multidisciplinary approach could strengthen medication reviews.•Hyperpolypharmacy patients more often mentioned follow-up agreements and a multidisciplinary approach as improvements.

Patients value medication reviews, although only half of them were aware that these services exist.

Patient perspectives are largely consistent over different levels of polypharmacy.

Patients prioritize appropriateness, efficacy, side-effects, and risk of medicines over practical use issues.

Better shared decision-making, follow-up agreements, and a multidisciplinary approach could strengthen medication reviews.

Hyperpolypharmacy patients more often mentioned follow-up agreements and a multidisciplinary approach as improvements.