Thoughts on literature review assessment process

Again these are my personal thoughts and opinions.

  • In case of doubt I include the study
  • There is a lot of IT research in the field, but developers design a system and they do not seem to test it in practice. They just claim that improves medication adherence.
  • HIV/AIDS is now often characterized as a chronic yet manageable disease.
  • The publications do not typically mention the term PHR but they state something similar to “mobile application linked to the GP” and any imaginative variation of this sentence; thus I think a very clear PHR definition is needed before the actual write up starts. Also mHealth is a term much more used than PHR.
  • Publications also use the term medication reconciliation aka the best possible medication history. These publications tend to link this term with PHR but not with medication adherence.
  • Would it be unadvised to assume that war veterans suffer from chronic conditions, without the authors explicitly state so?
  • Studies that used two modes of intervention are included if the primary mode is PHR-based.
  • A few publications use the term medication misuse, instead of medication adherence. I think it is safe to assume that if a patient does not misuse their medication they adhere to it.
  • Good adherence encompasses multiple dimensions, including intensity and timing of use according to prescription (compliance), continuous use (persistence) and correct use (technique). van Boven, J. F., Trappenburg, J. C., van der Molen, T., & Chavannes, N. H. (2015). Towards tailored and targeted adherence assessment to optimise asthma management. Npj Primary Care Respiratory Medicine, 25(1), 15046.

Possible comparisons:

  1. What impact does PHR intervention have in medication adherence? (positive, negative, none)
  2. What impact does PHR intervention have in patient’s attitude towards starting a new medication?

Comments are closed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *