Why the study?
Does the TREAT educational-behavioural intervention improve time in therapeutic range and medication adherence in patients with atrial fibrillation?
Does the TREAT educational-behavioural intervention improve time in therapeutic range and medication adherence in patients with atrial fibrillation?
A theory-derived, patient-centered educational intervention for atrial fibrillation can alleviate medication concerns and improve adherence, as reflected by better time in therapeutic range.
Medication harm beliefs were associated with TTR; leaves open whether education targeting perceptions improves adherence in AF.
This article describes the theoretical and pragmatic development of a patient-centred intervention for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Theoretical models (Common Sense Model, Necessity-Concerns Framework), clinical frameworks, and AF patient feedback contributed to the design of a one-off hour-long behaviour-change intervention package. Intervention materials consisted of a DVD, educational booklet, diary and worksheet, which were patient-centred and easy to administer. The intervention was evaluated within a randomised controlled trial. Several "active theoretical ingredients" were identified (for e.g., where patients believed their medication was less harmful they spent more time within the therapeutic range (TTR), with general harm scores predicting TTR at 6 months). Allowing for social comparison and adopting behaviour change techniques enabled accurate patient understanding of their condition and medication. The process of developing the intervention using theory-derived content and evaluation tools allowed a greater understanding of the mechanisms by which this intervention was successful. Alleviating concerns about treatment medication by educating patients can help to improve adherence. This process of intervention development could be adopted for a range of chronic illnesses and treatments. Critical elements should include the use of: (1) clinical guidelines; (2) appropriate theoretical models; (3) patient input; and (4) appropriate evaluation tools.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Clarkesmith et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: