Quality and Value of Provider-Patient Relationship and Impact on Adherence
This theme addresses the roles of the patient and provider in the provider-patient relationship, the value that the patient places on the doctor's words, and how the patient views the doctor's authority. Specifically, the theme includes whether the patient listens to and believes what the PCP tells him or her, follows directions without question, or responds to what the doctor has to say about his or her disease management.
Patients expressed positive and negative opinions about their provider-patient relationships and the role of the provider in disease management decisions. For instance, one female patient stated, “My primary care physician just recommended drug A, and I went along with his recommendation. Just purely on the strength of my relationship with him, I started it.” This statement illustrates the paternalistic approach to medical care13 with the patient following medical recommendations regardless of her opinion as to the value of the medication. Another patient added, “I have friends who don't follow what the doctor suggests in terms of medicine and it always surprises me. Why go to the doctor when you are not going to do what he says?” In these examples, the patient places a high value on the doctor as the authority in the medical decision making.
Satisfaction With Doctor Visits and Impact on Information Sharing About Medications
This theme describes patients' experiences during the clinic visits and their ability to discuss medical management and/or ask questions about their osteoporosis. Patients reported that their average visit length ranged from 7 to 15 minutes. Many patients reported feeling rushed during the visit and unable to bring up medication issues such as how to take their medications and the desire to receive written medication information from physicians. Patients also emphasized their need to have directions repeated as they had trouble understanding or recalling information. As one patient remarked, “When I couldn't swallow the pill, then I knew.... My doctor did not raise the issue of side effects and I didn't either. I read over the material that comes with the medication.” A few patients were very complimentary of their PCPs and appreciated the time that they shared together. For example, one patient noted, “My doctor uses 20 minutes, she gives me all the time I need (to understand my treatment).”
Greater Trust in Specialists Than Primary Care Physicians
Many patients seemed to believe in and trust specialists, such as endocrinologists or rheumatologists, more than their primary care physician when the issue was osteoporosis management. Patients shared their doubts about the primary care providers' knowledge of osteoporosis. As one patient commented, “I was on drug A and had to take it 3 times a week. The pharmacy gave me the directions, which were different, so I told my doctor. My doctor didn't say anything about (the discrepancy) when I told him. He said that it was fine.” Another added, “What's good about going to an endocrinologist is that when I had bone density screenings, we went over them and he showed me where getting off drug A would be advantageous (since drug A is not a lifetime drug and is effective for 5–10 years after it is first started). The primary care doctor really needs this knowledge.”
Self-image and Personal Dissatisfaction
Patients were concerned about having chronic age-related illness such as osteoporosis. They expressed concerns about their ability to move around, work, and socialize. Many patients, regardless of gender, expressed concerns about loss of height and developing a hump in their spine. For example, a woman remarked, “I never realized I had the hump..... I said oh my God, when did it come? Slowly I'm sure. It's too late now to correct that, but maybe I can help it from getting worse [with medication].”
Patients expressed uncertainty about how to take their medications. Most patients did not understand why they were taking a certain osteoporosis medication and could not describe how it worked or how to tell whether it was working. As one patient reported, “I was on drug A after a fall when I broke a couple of vertebrae. But the bone studies didn't improve after that.” In reference to discussion with the provider about medication instructions, one patient stated, “They (the PCPs) don't tell you much. It's printed on your prescription. It's always printed there and you should be aware of it.”
Psychological Impact of Disease and Adherence
Some patients reported feeling depressed and helpless after being diagnosed with osteoporosis, whereas others accepted the diagnosis and worked around the pain. Many patients modified their lifestyles. One patient shared, “When you get [osteoporosis], you get discouraged and you really don't want to hear it. It's not easy to be consistent (with drugs and exercises) and have structure in your life, and you have to have that.” Another patient, talking about how osteoporosis has affected her life, said, “Two years ago I woke up one morning and couldn't walk. I collapsed on the floor. My poor hip went.... So I had a big operation and it made me realize that if I could just walk again and be able to take care of my home [I would take my medication regularly]... This disease has changed my life.”
Patient Outlook on Adherence
This theme addresses factors that deter patients or present barriers to adherence and the factors that patients believed helped them adhere to their medication. Side effects of medications were a primary reason for lack of adherence and were not always shared with providers. As one patient stated, “I had taken drug A for 5 years but I stopped it because it destroyed my esophagus.” Another patient added, “I became non-compliant for a long period of time when I was having strange symptoms... I gave up everything, all my medications, because I began to suspect them all... I made a complete list of all my medications; I began reading the fine print [to figure out] which one was causing the symptoms.”
Other factors, such as the method of administration and medication instructions, were difficult for patients to remember. As one patient stated, “I have a terrible time remembering drug A because you have to punch one out (of the foil). And I totally forget. Then I have to remember not to lie down [after I take it].” Other patients incorporated strategies to overcome these barriers. For instance, regarding medication cost, a patient shared “a little trick” with Medicare B: “Anything that was not generic, I asked the doctor to switch to a generic ... So everything is at a minimum price, very inexpensive.”
Others developed strategies to consistently take their medication. As one patient noted, “I take my (osteoporosis medication) on Sunday. Every Sunday, because you can sit down for an hour and read the paper and then have breakfast.” Another patient added, “I like a newsletter (about medications), because what you read you remember. What you hear dissipates. You actually can refer back (to it) off and on, if you have it there.” A third patient added, “It would be easier if you get one of those pill compartments.” These shared strategies provoked a great deal of interchange among subjects. Most patients had a preferred strategy to use.
Source of Knowledge About Medication
Patients reported that they obtained information about osteoporosis and its treatments from sources other than their PCP. For example, one patient remarked, “I started it (my osteoporosis medication) when I read about the program in the communication booklet from the hospital's senior newsletter.” Another got her knowledge from the label that she read on the pill bottle: “I do not take drug A although I was told to, because when I read the label it said if you have difficulty swallowing, do not take it.”
Provider themes were focused on structural barriers to care, provider beliefs about patient nonadherence, and strategies to enhance patients' adherence to medications.
Structural Barriers to Care
Providers reported that structural barriers shaped health care practices around information sharing. These providers felt that they had little or no control over the clinic visit length, staffing, medical record systems, communication among doctors, and insurance plans. Providers felt that these barriers impaired their ability to provide effective patient care and played a large role in patient dissatisfaction. Providers felt that they alone could not do everything they wished to do, such as make new medication lists and problem lists, because of staffing issues. A physician stated, “With the ideal (unlimited) staffing you could have someone before the visit call up and say, ‘before you see the doctor, I want to get the medication list up to date. Tell me the pills you are taking and how you are taking them.’” Another physician said, “We should have enough staff do that and to be able to get the patient back (to the clinic).”
Another issue raised was the shortcomings of the medical records system and/or the inadequate use of this system by doctors. One provider remarked, “The biggest problem I see is I spend a lot of time cleaning out medication lists on the system. So someone is coming in with 12 things and you ask, what are you taking, and they are taking one of them.” Providers recognized that more complex medication regimens lead to more medication adherence problems. Other providers used the electronic medication system regularly to ensure that patients were taking their medications and to keep the list updated. For instance, a physician reported as follows: “I always go over (the medication list)...every time I see them, and you know it's on the list, and they (the patient) says, ‘Oh I forgot.’ A lot of people say they just forget... So [I do] some counseling right then.”
Length of Visit Time
Providers and patients felt that the visit time was not enough to address all the patients' concerns. Though a longer visit time would be ideal, many felt that it was not possible given their patient load. Many providers expressed their belief that issues that patients wish to discuss are not serious enough to require immediate medical intervention. As one provider said, “If you have 7 minutes, or you have 14 minutes, you still have 74 active problems. You just can't sit there and talk to them in all honesty about a lot if issues you'd like to. You just don't have the time.”
Medical insurance was seen as a major factor influencing adherence. Patients taking osteoporosis medications are old and have Medicare as their primary insurance. Providers felt that the insurance system was complicated and confused them as much as it confused their patients. As one provider shared, “With the new Medicare, honestly, I don't know anymore who's got what.” Another provider offered, “I think the seniors right now are so befuddled by Medicare D that people who were very reliable, now are like ‘Oh my Gosh, this is so big!’ I think it has been a detriment.”
Some physicians commented upon the difficulties coordinating medication regimens and the apparent lack of communication between providers treating the same patient. As one provider stated, “I had a patient ask me that day if I could find a medication that a urologist she had seen had wanted to put her on 4 years before. We spent 10 minutes going through the chart. It wasn't there in the note, and it was lost forever. I ended up e-mailing the doctor and this took a lot of time.” Another doctor responded, “The thing that would be very helpful is to get all the specialists to put their medications on the medication list.”
Physician Beliefs About Patient Adherence
This theme contains the provider's beliefs and perspective about the reasons for patients' nonadherence to osteoporosis medications. One of the factors widely accepted by these providers for nonadherence was the cost. Providers observed that because of cost of long-standing medications not covered by the insurance companies, patients stop taking medications, stop going for refills, or alter the dosage and frequency without consulting the doctor. A physician remarked, “We are seeing an increase in noncompliance that has to do with patients not being able to afford their medications.” Another added, “And the other thing patients do, for cost issues, is split the doses. Their dose is 40 mg, but they are taking 20 instead for approximately a month.”
In some focus groups, providers vocalized experiences from their practice, stating that patients sometimes did not know why they were taking a certain medication. They believed that patients need knowledge to comply, and they should have information about their condition and the drugs they are taking, to ensure adherence to medications. A physician recounting a patient experience said, “[The patient] had hypothyroidism and supposedly started on medications and then never took it. So she came back with real significant (symptoms) so I said, ‘what happened?’ She didn't think it was important.” Another physician commenting on adherence to medications for chronic nonsymptomatic illnesses said, “Another big issue is when people aren't feeling symptoms, they don't take the medications. Compliance is terrible because people feel well.”
Some providers brought up issues about communication and accuracy of patient reports. Are the patients actually taking their medications? Physicians had almost no way of knowing for sure. A doctor observed, “With some of those more silent, asymptomatic conditions, it is a harder issue to trust or to know when someone is lying to you.”
The providers believed that side effects were a fairly common reason for patients to discontinue medications. More often than not, the providers were not informed about these changes. For instance, a doctor remarked, “People having side effects stop the medicine and then come back to see you 4 months later,” whereas another added, “Our educated patients, they read the fine print and they see the nausea, dizziness, and you have a problem. They will not take the medication because they think they can do natural treatments and sometimes they need to be persuaded (to take their osteoporosis medications).”
Outside sources of knowledge were believed to influence patients. This is knowledge that patients gain from other sources like media, friends, family, pharmacists, and so forth, which affects their decisions of taking drugs, treating their ailments, and sometimes lead patients to place less value on the doctors' decision. One doctor commented, “They are getting all this information from the media... You shouldn't be taking this... Everything that comes out of the news people listen to and then call their doctor and say, ‘should I be taking this?’ And [they] start doubting whether they should be on it.” Another doctor expressed, “I always talk about adverse effects and yet patients get their adverse effects info from Women's Day, Oprah Winfrey, the person sitting next to them at the beauty parlor or the bar, their grandmother, their nephew. The doctor is one voice among 12 others that have equal weight in whether they should take that medicine.”
This theme addresses strategies and solutions suggested by providers to help encourage better patient adherence to osteoporosis medications.
Providers suggested the use of pill boxes which patients could fill once a week. One provider suggested “cards with pill boxes for geriatric patients, (since) cognition isn't there to remember their medications,” whereas another added, “I think a pill box is a good way to make sure that the medications can be tracked, and what [the patients] have taken.”
This is another tool suggested by the physicians. A PCP suggested, “PCPs could give the patient a miniaturized laminated medication book with updates at every visit.” Another physician talking about the drawback of a pocket-sized list commented, “It's a trade off of how much (information) you can put on it, so that you can put in into a wallet or a pocket book.”
Longitudinal medical records list
The longitudinal medical records (LMR) is a system of ambulatory electronic medical records that most hospitals and health care facilities maintain.14 With LMR, providers can maintain patient records electronically, enhance data access, and reduce time in nondirect care–related activities.14 In addition, providers can easily share data with other clinicians across the facility.14 Providers felt that LMR was a convenient tool to enhance communication among providers. Providers suggested modifying the LMR system to list medications, their frequency, and dosage, which could be printed and given to patients at each visit. One doctor talking about convenience of LMR said, “Everything has to be in LMR, or it's a pain in the neck. It is to put something in LMR, click, save or forward and say set this person up for an appointment to check on this.” Another stated, “On occasion I have printed out the LMR medication list and given to the patient. It says take 1 p.o.q.d. It would be good to have something in LMR, to translate the medication list into English in a printable format.” The physicians felt that this was doable.
Providers felt that they were overburdened and hence not able to spend quality time with patients. They attributed this to clinics being short staffed and suggested having a medical assistant or help from nurses to deal with minor patient problems, so that patients are prepared with their major concerns when they actually see the PCP. This would enable the nurse to go over their medication lists and would give patients an opportunity to voice their concerns. A physician suggested, “Someone [other than us] needs to screens the patients, and go over their current med list.” Another added, “Some patients cannot read so the medical assistant can spend more time and figure out which (drug) is which.” Providers disapproved of insurance companies calling their patients to check whether they are taking their medication or refilling their prescription. A physician commented, “I would rather that they put their resources to be spent towards a geriatric nurse who can maybe do drug compliance, maybe bring in patients over 80 once a year with all their medications and try and do some teaching.”
There have been numerous studies conducted by insurance providers and independent researchers, examining patient adherence with osteoporosis medications and evaluating the effectiveness versus side effects of bisphosphonates and various other therapies available for managing osteoporosis. In the past, there have been studies examining patient outlook on adherence, but the unique aspect of this study is that it is the first to identify and compare physicians' and patients' perspectives about osteoporosis and the factors believed to be responsible for poor adherence to osteoporosis medications.
The data indicate that patients had a fair idea about the pathology involved in osteoporosis, and they obtained information from their doctors, friends, families, articles, and newsletters. The patients were open to trying different methods to enhance adherence to their medications, but they seemed dissatisfied with their PCP's knowledge about osteoporosis as compared with a specialist. Most patients also indicated that they were not instructed adequately about the medications by their providers. Patients preferred written information, in addition to spoken information, to help them remember the information shared. Written information could be referred to often and at their own convenience. These patients also seemed open to new treatments for osteoporosis and were interested in learning about advances in treatments.
As compared with the patients, the provider group expressed concerns regarding the structural barriers with medical infrastructure such as staffing, LMR, lack of communication between doctors, and various insurance programs. They suggested strategies like increasing patient knowledge, providing pocket lists and calendars, and having medical assistants or nurses help with patient screening and with geriatric patients having problems reading or understanding the method and frequency of taking their drugs.
Providers reported that they believed that their patients trusted and listened to specialists more than PCPs and recognized that patients gathered knowledge about osteoporosis from other outside sources. They reported that factors affecting patient adherence included drug side effects, cost, lack of knowledge about osteoporosis and benefits of treatment, and inability of the doctors to track patient adherence to therapy. Thus, certain factors such as education and knowledge about osteoporosis, side effects, and lack of doctor-patient communication surfaced as common factors affecting adherence across doctor and patient groups. Interestingly, patients identified more issues that were provider focused, specifically identifying the provider-patient relationship as a component impacting adherence, whereas provider suggestions remained patient and system focused.
A common area of concern emerging from patient and provider focus groups was dissatisfaction with the length of visits. Patients felt that the average 7- to 15-minute visit was not long enough for them to talk to their doctor about all their problems, and providers believed that they could not satisfactorily address all patient concerns during the limited time frame. Another theme that emerged as common was the amount of trust that patients placed in specialists. Patients believed that their PCPs did not have enough knowledge about osteoporosis and did not instruct them adequately about medications and treatment options available. The providers felt that patients placed more trust in the specialists and did not heed what the PCPs said. Both the patients and the doctors identified certain common factors for nonadherence of patients to their osteoporosis medications. They included the high cost of long-term medications, stopping medications because of side effects, and lack of patient knowledge about the medication.
Patients and physicians provided similar suggestions for enhancing patient adherence to medications such as using pillboxes, pocket lists, and calendars and distributing newsletters and detailed instructions of how and when to take medications. This study was conducted using patients and providers from a metropolitan area and from a few large hospitals. Thus, the result may not be applicable to all patients with osteoporosis. Although this study focused on providers who prescribed medications in the hospital-based medical practices, the information gleaned from these providers and patients may be useful for all members of the health care team. For example, limited time during medical visits was identified as a key factor impacting patient knowledge and thus, adherence to medications. Expanding the role of other health care providers (physical therapists, occupational therapists, etc) in educating patients about how to take medications; medication side effects and benefits; and exercise and supplements, perhaps using a central patient brochure, may improve medication compliance, increase physical activity, and enhance health outcomes. As each specialty has its unique approach to patient education and professional content, the variety of modes of information delivery and emphasis used by each profession may be more effective than single-specialty approaches. Physical therapists can assist in addressing impairments such as changes in posture (excessive kyphosis or hump), and in doing so, they can indirectly impact the psychosocial consequences of the disease.
The results of this study helped to inform the development of a multimodal intervention designed to elicit attitudes, beliefs, and barriers about OP medication adherence and to address system-based issues raised during the focus group. The intervention incorporates newsletters from patient-valued sources, personal counseling using motivational interviewing, and educational materials based on issues raised by patients during the focus groups. The intervention is being tested using a large cluster randomized controlled trial designed to improve adherence to osteoporosis medications and to examine cost-effectiveness of alternative strategies.
1. Badamgarav E, Fitzpatrick L A new look at osteoporosis outcomes: the influence of treatment, compliance, persistence, and adherence. Mayo Clinic Proc. 2006;81(8):1009–1012.
3. Burge RT, Dawson-Huges B, Solomon DH, et al. Incidence and economic burden of osteoporotic fractures in the United States. Presented at: the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research Meeting; 2005. September 23–27, 2005.
4. Black DM, Cummings SR, Karpf DB, et al. Fracture Intervention Trial Research Group. Randomized trial of effect of alendronate on risk of fracture in women with existing vertebral fractures. Lancet. 1996;348:1535–1541.
5. Harris ST, Watts NB, Genant HK, et al. Effects of risedronate treatment on vertebral and non-vertebral fractures in women with post menopausal osteoporosis: a randomized controlled trial. Vertebral Efficacy With Risedronate Therapy (VERT) Study Group. JAMA. 1999;282:1344–1352.
6. NIH Consensus Development Panel on Osteoporosis Prevention, Diagnosis, and Therapy. Osteoporosis prevention, diagnosis, and therapy. JAMA. 2001;285:785–795.
7. Dawson-Huges B, Harris SS, Krall EA, et al. Effect of calcium and vitamin D supplementation on bone density in men and women 65 years of age or older. N Engl J Med. 1997;337:670–676.
8. Silverman S Adherence to medications for the treatment of osteoporosis. Rheum Dis Clin North Am. 2006;32:721–731.
9. Downy T, Foltz S, Bocuzzi S Adherence and persistence associated with the pharmacologic treatment of osteoporosis in a managed care setting. South Med J. 2006;99:570–575.
10. Solomon DH, Avorn J, Katz JN, et al. Compliance with osteoporosis medications. Arch Intern Med. 2005;165:2414–2419.
11. Gold DT, Alexander IM, Ettinger MP How can osteoporosis patients benefit more from their therapy? Adherence issues with bisphosphonate therapy. Ann Pharmacother. 2006;40:1143–1150.
12. Strauss A, Corbin J. In: McElroy S, ed. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory, Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1990.
13. Roter DL, Hall JL Doctors Talking With Patients/Patients Talking With Doctors: Improving Communication in Medical Visits. Westport, CT: Auburn House; 1992.
adherence; osteoporosis; patients; perspectives; providers© 2011 Academy of Geriatric Physical Therapy, APTA