4.0 Article

Development of the Drug Adherence Work-up (DRAW) tool

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN PHARMACISTS ASSOCIATION
Volume 52, Issue 6, Pages E199-E204

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1331/JAPhA.2012.12001

Keywords

Adherence (medication); medication therapy management; screening tools

Funding

  1. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality [1R18 HS18353]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To develop and conduct an initial field test of the Drug Adherence Work-up (DRAW) tool, which was developed to guide pharmacists when addressing nonadherence during medication therapy management (MTM) visits. Methods: The field test was a prospective cohort study, in which seven trained pharmacists used DRAW to evaluate patients by asking about possible reasons for nonadherence during an MTM visit. Pharmacists were notified of potentially nonadherent patients identified through drug claims data analyzed by Outcomes Pharmaceutical Health Care. The pharmacists reported on use of DRAW in an MTM claim and provided opinions about DRAW via an online survey. Results: According to the online survey, pharmacists reported that DRAW helped them to improve the focus of their MTM services and address more adherence problems than their usual approach. They thought the tool was easy to use and well organized. Some commented that DRAW could be a useful tool for teaching pharmacists. The most common reasons reported for nonadherence were the presence of adverse effects (59.1%) or forgetting to take the medication (54.5%). More than three-fourths of patients (77.3%) indicated more than one reason for nonadherence. Conclusion: A brief, comprehensive tool to evaluate medication nonadherence, such as DRAW, may help pharmacists address various reasons for medication nonadherence. Often nonadherence is multifaceted, which makes an inclusive tool like DRAW a useful approach; however further research is needed.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available