Factors influencing rheumatologists’ prescription of biological treatment in rheumatoid arthritis: an interview study

Implementation Science

Per Carlsson¹  Eva Hallert²  Kerstin Roback¹  Almina Kalkan¹ 

[1] Center for Medical Technology Assessment, Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, SE-581 83, Sweden;Department of Cardiovascular Diseases and Speciality Medicine, University Hospital, Linköping, SE-581 85, Sweden

关键词: CFIR;    Qualitative;    Practice variations;    Clinical decision-making;    Physicians;    Implementation;    Biological drugs;    Rheumatoid arthritis;    Prescription;   

Others  :  1139531
DOI  :  10.1186/s13012-014-0153-5

 received in 2014-06-03, accepted in 2014-09-29,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

The introduction of biological drugs involved a fundamental change in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The extent to which biological drugs are prescribed to RA patients in different regions in Sweden varies greatly. Previous research has indicated that differences in health care practice at the regional level might obscure differences at the individual level. The objective of this study is to explore what influences individual rheumatologists¿ decisions when prescribing biological drugs.

Method

Semi-structured interviews, utilizing closed- and open-ended questions, were conducted with senior rheumatologists, selected through a mix of random and purposive sampling. The interview questions consisted of two parts, with a ¿parallel mixed method¿ approach. In the first and main part, open-ended exploratory questions were posed about factors influencing prescription. In the second part, the rheumatologists were asked to rate predefined factors that might influence their prescription decisions. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was used as a conceptual framework for data collection and analysis.

Results

Twenty-six rheumatologists were interviewed. A constellation of various factors and their interaction influenced rheumatologists¿ prescribing decisions, including the individual rheumatologist¿s experiences and perceptions of the evidence, the structure of the department including responsibility for costs, peer pressure, political and administrative influences, and participation in clinical trials. The patient as an actor emerged as an important factor. Hence, factors both at organizational and individual levels influenced the prescribing of biological drugs. The factors should not be seen as individual influences but were described as influencing prescription in an interactive, nonlinear way.

Conclusions

Potential factors explaining differences in prescription practice are experience and perception of the evidence on the individual level and the structure of the department and participation in clinical trials on the organizational level. The influence of patient attitudes and preferences and interpretation of scientific evidence seemed to be somewhat contradictory in the qualitative responses as compared to the quantitative rating, and this needs further exploration. An implication of the present study is that in addition to scientific knowledge, attempts to influence prescription behavior need to be multifactorial and account for interactions of factors between different actors.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Kalkan et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Klareskog L, van der Heijde D, de Jager JP, Gough A, Kalden J, Malaise M, Martín Mola E, Pavelka K, Sany J, Settas L, Wajdula J, Pedersen R, Fatenejad S, Sanda M: Therapeutic effect of the combination of etanercept and methotrexate compared with each treatment alone in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: double-blind randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2004, 363:675-81.
• [2]Chen YF, Jobanputra P, Barton P, Jowett S, Bryan S, Clark W, Fry-Smith A, Burls A: A systematic review of the effectiveness of adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in adults and an economic evaluation of their cost-effectiveness. Health Technol Assess 2006, 10:1-229.
• [3]Nam JL, Winthrop KL, van Vollenhoven RF, Pavelka K, Valesini G, Hensor EM, Worthy G, Landewé R, Smolen JS, Emery P, Buch MH: Current evidence for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: a systematic literature review informing the EULAR recommendations for the management of RA. Ann Rheum Dis 2010, 69:976-986.
• [4]Wolfe F, Michaud K: The loss of health status in rheumatoid arthritis and the effect of biologic therapy: a longitudinal observational study. Arthritis Res Ther 2010, 12:R35. BioMed Central Full Text
• [5]Van Vollenhoven RF, Geborek P, Forslind K, Albertsson K, Ernestam S, Petersson IF, Chatzidionysiou K, Bratt J: Conventional combination treatment versus biological treatment in methotrexate-refractory early rheumatoid arthritis: 2 year follow-up of the randomised, non-blinded, parallel-group Swefot trial. Lancet 2012, 379:1712-1720.
• [6]Sokka T, Haugeberg G, Asikainen J, Widding Hansen IJ, Kokko A, Rannio T, Soldal DM, Hannonen P: Similar clinical outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis with more versus less expensive treatment strategies. Observational data from two rheumatology clinics. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2013, 31(3):409-414.
• [7]O¿Dell JR, Mikuls TR, Taylor TH, Ahluwalia V, Brophy M, Warren SR, Lew RA, Cannella AC, Kunkel G, Phibbs CS, Anis AH, Leatherman S, Keystone E: Therapies for active rheumatoid arthritis after methotrexate failure. N Engl J Med 2013, 369:4.
• [8]Van Vollenhoven RF: Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Nat Rev Rheumatol 2009, 5:531-541.
• [9]Jönsson B, Kobelt G, Smolen J: The burden of rheumatoid arthritis and access to treatment: uptake of new therapies. Eur J Health Econ 2008, 8(Suppl 2):61-86.
• [10][http://www.lif.se/default.aspx?id=87844&ptid=0] webcite IMS Health: Läkemedelstatistik. 2013 []
• [11][http://www.socialstyrelsen.se/nationellariktlinjerforrorelseorganenssjukdomar] webcite Socialstyrelsen: Nationella riktlinjer för rörelseorganens sjukdomar 2012. []
• [12][http://www3.svls.se/sektioner/srf/dokument/rikt/riktra04/riktrakort.pdf] webcite Svensk Reumatologisk Förening: Riktlinjer för vård och behandling av patienter med reumatoid artrit. 2004. []
• [13][http://www.svenskreumatologi.se/sites/default/files/49/Riktlinjer_RA_2014.pdf] webcite Svensk Reumatologisk Förening: Riktlinjer för läkemedelsbehandling vid reumatoid artrit. 2013 []
• [14]Singh JA, Furst DE, Bharat A, Curtis JR, Kavanaugh AF, Kremer JM, Moreland LW, O'Dell J, Winthrop KL, Beukelman T, Bridges SL Jr, Chatham WW, Paulus HE, Suarez-Almazor M, Bombardier C, Dougados M, Khanna D, King CM, Leong AL, Matteson EL, Schousboe JT, Moynihan E, Kolba KS, Jain A, Volkmann ER, Agrawal H, Bae S, Mudano AS, Patkar NM, Saag KG: Update of the 2008 American College of Rheumatology recommendations for the use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and biologic agents in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Care Res 2012, 2012(64):625-639.
• [15]Smolen JS, Landewé R, Breedveld FC, Buch M, Burmester G, Dougados M, Emery P, Gaujoux-Viala C, Gossec L, Nam J, Ramiro S, Winthrop K, de Wit M, Aletaha D, Betteridge N, Bijlsma JW, Boers M, Buttgereit F, Combe B, Cutolo M, Damjanov N, Hazes JM, Kouloumas M, Kvien TK, Mariette X, Pavelka K, van Riel PL, Rubbert-Roth A, Scholte-Voshaar M, Scott DL, et al.: EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2013 update. Ann Rheum Dis 2014, 73:492-509.
• [16]Deighton C, O¿Mahony R, Tosh J, Turner C, Rudolf M: Management of rheumatoid arthritis: summary of NICE guidance. BMJ 2009, 338:b702.
• [17]Van Vollenhoven RF, Askling J: Rheumatoid arthritis registries in Sweden. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2005, 23(5 Suppl 39):S195-S200.
• [18]Neovius M, Simard J, Sundström A, Jacobsson L, Geborek P, Saxne T, Feltelius N, Klareskog L, Askling J: Generalisability of clinical registers used for drug safety and comparative effectiveness research: coverage of the Swedish Biologics Register. Ann Rheum Dis 2011, 70(3):516-519.
• [19]Öppna Jämförelser 2013 In Läkemedelsbehandlingar- Jämförelser mellan Landsting. Edita Västra Aros, Västerås; 2013. 6¿1
• [20]Freeman AC, Sweeney K: Why general practitioners do not implement evidence: qualitative study. BMJ 2001, 323(7321):1100-1102.
• [21]Bate L, Hutchinson A, Underhill J, Maskrey N: How clinical decisions are made. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2012, 74(4):614-620.
• [22]Lewis P, Tully MP: Uncomfortable prescribing decisions in hospitals: the impact of teamwork. J R Soc Med 2009, 102:481-488.
• [23]Prosser H, Almond S, Walley T: Influences on GPs¿ decision to prescribe new drugs¿the importance of who says what. Fam Pract 2003, 20:61-68.
• [24]Prosser H, Walley T: New drug prescribing by hospital doctors: the nature and meaning of knowledge. Soc Sci Med 2006, 62(7):1565-1578.
• [25]Jones MI, Greenfield M, Bradley C: Prescribing new drugs: qualitative study of influences on consultants and general practitioners. Br Med J 2001, 323:378-396.
• [26]Meyfroidt S, Van Hulst L, De Cock D, Van der Elst K, Joly J, Westhovens R, Hulscher M, Verschueren P: Factors influencing the prescription of intensive combination treatment strategies for early rheumatoid arthritis. Scand J Rheumatol 2014, 43:265-272.
• [27]Brommels M, Hansson J, Granström E, Wåhlin E: Professionen, Pennan och Pengarna- Regionala Skillnader i Användning av Läkemedel- en Retrospektiv Fallstudie. Medical Management Centrum, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm; 2013.
• [28]Mercuri M, Natarajan MK, Norman G: An even smaller area variation: differing practice patterns among interventional cardiologists within a single high volume tertiary cardiac centre. Health Policy 2012, 104:179-185.
• [29]Stano M: Further issues in small area variations analysis. J Health Polit Policy Law 1991, 16:3.
• [30]Creswell JW: Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Sage, Thousand Oaks; 2003.
• [31][http://www.scb.se/BE0101/] webcite Statistics Sweden: Population statistics. []
• [32][www.srq.nu] webcite The Swedish Rheumatology Quality Register: 2013 [http://]
• [33]Endacott R, Botti M: Clinical research 3: sample selection. Intensive Crit Care Nurs 2005, 21:51-55.
• [34]Sturges JE, Hanrahan KJ: Comparing telephone and face-to-face qualitative interviewing: a research note. Qual Res 2004, 4(1):107-118.
• [35]Bogner A, Littig B, Menz W: Interviewing Experts. Palgrave Macmillan, New York; 2009.
• [36]Östlund U, Kidd L, Wengström Y, Rowa-Dewar N: Combining qualitative and quantitative research within mixed method research designs: a methodological review. Int J Nurs Stud 2010, 48(3):369-383.
• [37]Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC: Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci 2009, 4:50. BioMed Central Full Text
• [38]Sorensen JL, Kosten T: Developing the tools of implementation science in substance use disorders treatment: applications of the consolidated framework for implementation research. Psychol Addict Behav 2011, 25(2):262-268.
• [39]Abbott PA, Foster J, Marin HF, Dykes PC: Complexity and the science of implementation in health IT¿knowledge gaps and future visions. Int J Med Inform 2014, 83:12-22.
• [40]Ilott I, Gerrish K, Booth A, Field B: Testing the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research on health care innovations from South Yorkshire. J Eval Clin Pract 2013, 19:915-924.
• [41]Chauhan D, Mason A: Factors affecting the uptake of new medicines in secondary care - a literature review. J Clin Pharm Ther 2008, 33(4):339-348.
• [42]Bryman A: Barriers to integrating quantitative and qualitative research. J Mixed Methods Res 2007, 1:8-22.
• [43]Hsieh HF, Shannon SE: Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res 2005, 15:1277-1288.
• [44]Krippendorff K: Content Analysis. An Introduction to Its Methodology. Sage, Thousand Oaks; 2013.
• [45]Barbour RS: Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: a case of the tail wagging the dog? BMJ 2001, 322(7294):1115-1117.
• [46]Ljungberg C, Lindblad AK, Tully MP: Hospital doctors¿ views of factors influencing their prescribing. J Eval Clin Pract 2007, 13(5):765-771.
• [47]McGettigan P, Golden J, Fryer J, Chan R, Feely J: Prescribers prefer people: the sources of information used by doctors for prescribing suggest that the medium is more important than the message. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2001, 51(2):184-189.
• [48]Sturm H, Austvoll-Dahlgren A, Aaserud M: Pharmaceutical policies: effects of financial incentives for prescribers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007, 18(3):CD006731.
• [49]Corrigan MH, Glass HE: Physician participation in clinical studies and subsequent prescribing of new drugs. Pharm Ther 2005, 30(1):60-66.
• [50]Hay MC, Weisner TS, Subramanian S, Duan N, Niedzinski EJ, Kravitz RL: Harnessing experience: exploring the gap between evidence-based medicine and clinical practice. J Eval Clin Pract 2008, 14(5):707-713.
• [51]Makowsky MJ, Guirguis LM, Hughes CA, Sadowski CA, Yuksel N: Factors influencing pharmacists¿ adoption of prescribing: qualitative application of the diffusion of innovations theory. Implement Sci 2013, 8:109. BioMed Central Full Text