Assessing adherence to dermatology treatments: a review of self‐report and electronic measures

Background: Nonadherence to prescribed medications is a common problem in dermatology, and assessing adherence can be difficult. Electronic monitors are not always practical, but self‐report measures may be less reliable. Purpose: To review the literature for self‐report instruments and electronic monitors used to measure medication adherence in patients with chronic disease. Methods: A PubMed literature search was conducted using the terms ‘scale,’‘measure,’‘self‐report,’‘electronic,’ and ‘medication adherence.’ Relevant articles were reviewed and selected if they addressed self‐report or electronic measures of adherence in chronic disease. Results: Eleven self‐report instruments for the measurement of adherence were identified. Four were validated using electronic monitors. All produced an estimate of adherence that correlated with actual behavior, although this correlation was not strong for any of the measures. None of the scales was tested in patients who had dermatologic disease and/or used topical medications. Several electronic monitoring systems were identified, including pill counts, pharmacy refill logs, and the Medication Event Monitoring System (MEMS^®). Validity was higher among electronic monitoring systems compared with self‐report measures. Conclusion: While several self‐report measures of adherence have been validated in chronic disease populations, their relevance in dermatology patients has not been studied. A dermatology‐specific instrument for the measurement of adherence would contribute to improved outcomes; until such a tool exists, researchers and clinicians should consider nonadherence as a possible factor in skin disease that is not responsive to treatment. Electronic monitoring provides the most reliable means of measuring adherence, and may provide additional clues to identify barriers to adherence.     

Perspectives on the future of dissemination and implementation research in oral and craniofacial sciences

Dissemination and implementation science is a field of research that promotes the adoption and maintenance of evidence-based interventions in healthcare delivery and community settings and seeks to understand the processes by which such adoption and maintenance occur. While dissemination and implementation science is an established field in health services research, it is relatively new and making inroads in dental, oral and craniofacial research. This article summarizes the proceedings from a scientific panel on ‘Dissemination and Implementation Science for Oral and Craniofacial Health’ that was held during the international Behavioral and Social Oral Health Sciences Summit. The panelists were four experts on dissemination and implementation science in dental and non-dental academic settings in the United States and Scotland, with affiliations ranging from schools of dentistry and public health to the National Institutes of Health and a healthcare system with integrated dental services. The panel discussion addressed how dissemination and implementation science can be used to further oral health research. The narrative report presented here aims to describe the panelists' reflections and insights on their current initiatives in dissemination and implementation research to inform future research endeavors within the oral and craniofacial sciences. Specifically, this article focuses on six discussion topics: (1) how organizational determinants can serve as facilitators or barriers to the implementation of evidence-based dental practice; (2) how dentistry can ‘de-implement’ practices that are not effective; (3) how implementation science can support the delivery of evidence-based dental practice using adaptation; (4) how to get started in implementation science; (5) how the broader environment can support large-scale implementation efforts; and (6) how oral and craniofacial science is well suited for advancing dissemination and implementation research.     

Novel management of granuloma formation secondary to dermal filler: A multi-modality approach

Background

Dermal fillers for soft tissue augmentation have become increasingly popular among patients of all ages and ethnicities. With more widespread use, there has been an increased incidence of adverse reactions, one of which is the granulomatous foreign body reaction (GFBR).

Materials & Methods

We present a three patient case series in which GFBR secondary to dermal filler was successfully treated with a multi-leveled approach. The first modality involves intralesional injection of a mixture containing 1 cc of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), 0.5 cc of dexamethasone sodium phosphate, and 0.1 cc of triamcinolone 10. The lesion is injected intradermally in small aliquots, similar to scar treatment. The patient then takes colchicine 1.2 mg loading dose on day 1, then 0.6 mg twice per day for 4 days concurrently with naproxen 500 mg orally once daily for 5–7 days. This process may be repeated in 6 weeks if the lesions have not resolved and PDL laser may be employed for residual post-inflammatory erythema.

Results

All three patients presented in this case series had significant aesthetic improvement in their dermal filler-derived foreign body granulomatous reactions.

Conclusion

GFBR provides both a medical and aesthetic issue for these patients including mental distress, pain, and dysfunction, therefore having an effective treatment for GFBR will affect medical management of these patients, improving patient outcomes and satisfaction. Our proposed regimen for GFBR has been shown to be highly efficacious and safe for these patients, providing a significant improvement in both function and cosmesis of the area.     

Medicare's hospital readmissions reduction program and the rise in observation stays

Objective

To evaluate whether Medicare's Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) is associated with increased observation stay use.

Data Sources and Study Setting

A nationally representative sample of fee-for-service Medicare claims, January 2009–September 2016.

Study Design

Using a difference-in-difference (DID) design, we modeled changes in observation stays as a proportion of total hospitalizations, separately comparing the initial (acute myocardial infarction, pneumonia, heart failure) and subsequent (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) target conditions with a control group of nontarget conditions. Each model used 3 time periods: baseline (15 months before program announcement), an intervening period between announcement and implementation, and a 2-year post-implementation period, with specific dates defined by HRRP policies.

Data Collection/Extraction Methods

We derived a 20% random sample of all hospitalizations for beneficiaries continuously enrolled for 12 months before hospitalization (N = 7,162,189).

Principal Findings

Observation stays increased similarly for the initial HRRP target and nontarget conditions in the intervening period (0.01% points per month [95% CI −0.01, 0.3]). Post-implementation, observation stays increased significantly more for target versus nontarget conditions, but the difference is quite small (0.02% points per month [95% CI 0.002, 0.04]). Results for the COPD analysis were statistically insignificant in both policy periods.

Conclusions

The increase in observation stays is likely due to other factors, including audit activity and clinical advances.     

Involvement of people who use alcohol and other drug services in the development of patient-reported measures of experience: A scoping review

Introduction

Patient-reported measures that assess satisfaction and experience are increasingly utilised in healthcare sectors, including the alcohol and other drug (AOD) sector. This scoping review identifies how and to what extent people accessing AOD services have been involved in the development of satisfaction and experience measures to date.

Methods

PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, ProQuest, Google and Google Scholar were searched. Included papers described the development and/or implementation of a multiple-item measure of patient-reported experience or satisfaction specifically for people accessing AOD treatment and/or harm reduction programmes. If there was more than one paper, key papers were chosen that described each measure. The method of development, including service user involvement, was assessed against a framework generated for this review. Two reviewers were involved at each stage.

Results

Thirty measures—23 satisfaction and 7 experience—were identified. Sixteen measures reported some level of involvement by people accessing AOD services in their development, although, for most measures, at a relatively low level. This involvement increased over the time span of the review becoming more frequent in later years. Only four measures were developed for use in harm reduction-specific settings, and fewer than half reported undertaking analysis of underlying scale structure and constructs.

Conclusion

Several gaps could be addressed to enhance the measurement of patient-centred care in the AOD sector, including: developing experience measures for use in harm reduction settings and across various AOD settings in a service system; improved reporting of psychometric properties of these measures and increasing commitment to the meaningful involvement of AOD service users in measure development.

Patient or Public Contribution

This scoping review is part of a broader codesign project that involves a partnership between the peak organisation for AOD services and the peer-based AOD consumer organisation in the Australian Capital Territory, Australia. These organisations are working closely together to engage with AOD service users, service providers and policy makers in this codesign project. As such, the Executive Director of the peer-based AOD consumer organisation is involved as a co-author of this scoping review.