IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v10y2017i2d10.1007_s40271-016-0180-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Factors Affecting Patients’ Perception On, and Adherence To, Anticoagulant Therapy: Anticipating the Role of Direct Oral Anticoagulants

Author

Listed:
  • Ekta Y. Pandya

    (University of Technology Sydney)

  • Beata Bajorek

    (University of Technology Sydney
    Royal North Shore Hospital)

Abstract

The role of the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in practice has been given extensive consideration recently, albeit largely from the clinician’s perspective. However, the effectiveness and safety of using anticoagulants is highly dependent on the patient’s ability to manage and take these complex, high-risk medicines. This structured narrative review explores the published literature to identify the factors underpinning patients’ non-adherence to anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation (AF), and subsequently contemplates to what extent the DOACs might overcome the known challenges with traditional warfarin therapy. This review comprised a two-tier search of various databases and search platforms (CINAHL, Cochrane, Current Contents Connect, EMBASE, MEDLINE Ovid, EBSCO, PubMed, Google, Google Scholar) to yield 47 articles reporting patients perspectives on, and patients adherence to, anticoagulant therapy. The findings from the literature were synthesised under five interacting dimensions of adherence: therapy-related factors, patient-related factors, condition-related factors, social–economic factors and health system factors. Factors negatively affecting patients’ day-to-day lives (especially regular therapeutic drug monitoring, dose adjustments, dietary considerations) predominantly underpin a patient’s reluctance to take warfarin therapy, leading to non-adherence. Other patient-related factors underpinning non-adherence include patients’ perceptions and knowledge about the purpose of anticoagulation; understanding of the risks and benefits of therapy; socioeconomic status; and expectations of care from health professionals. In considering these findings, it is apparent that the DOACs may overcome some of the barriers to traditional warfarin therapy at least to an extent, particularly the need for regular monitoring, frequent dose adjustment and dietary considerations. However, their high cost, twice-daily dosing and gastrointestinal adverse effects may present additional challenges for patients and health systems. The review highlights the need to explicitly incorporate patients’ perspectives in decision-making processes for anticoagulant selection, to obtain optimum adherence and treatment outcomes. Further studies should explore resources that can better engage patients in decision making around the selection of anticoagulant therapy.

Suggested Citation

  • Ekta Y. Pandya & Beata Bajorek, 2017. "Factors Affecting Patients’ Perception On, and Adherence To, Anticoagulant Therapy: Anticipating the Role of Direct Oral Anticoagulants," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 10(2), pages 163-185, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:10:y:2017:i:2:d:10.1007_s40271-016-0180-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-016-0180-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-016-0180-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40271-016-0180-1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Peter Ghijben & Emily Lancsar & Silva Zavarsek, 2014. "Preferences for Oral Anticoagulants in Atrial Fibrillation: a Best–Best Discrete Choice Experiment," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(11), pages 1115-1127, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Attila Juhász & Csilla Nagy & Orsolya Varga & Klára Boruzs & Mária Csernoch & Zoltán Szabó & Róza Ádány, 2020. "Antithrombotic Preventive Medication Prescription Redemption and Socioeconomic Status in Hungary in 2016: A Cross-Sectional Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(18), pages 1-16, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tommi Tervonen & Pareen Vora & Jaein Seo & Nicolas Krucien & Kevin Marsh & Raffaele De Caterina & Ulrike Wissinger & Montse Soriano Gabarró, 2021. "Patient Preferences of Low-Dose Aspirin for Cardiovascular Disease and Colorectal Cancer Prevention in Italy: A Latent Class Analysis," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(5), pages 661-672, September.
    2. John Buckell & Joachim Marti & Jody L. Sindelar, 2017. "Should Flavors be Banned in E-cigarettes? Evidence on Adult Smokers and Recent Quitters from a Discrete Choice Experiment," NBER Working Papers 23865, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Kei Long Cheung & Ben F. M. Wijnen & Ilene L. Hollin & Ellen M. Janssen & John F. Bridges & Silvia M. A. A. Evers & Mickael Hiligsmann, 2016. "Using Best–Worst Scaling to Investigate Preferences in Health Care," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(12), pages 1195-1209, December.
    4. Kaat de Corte & John Cairns & Richard Grieve, 2021. "Stated versus revealed preferences: An approach to reduce bias," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(5), pages 1095-1123, May.
    5. Lim, Siew & Wachenheim, Cheryl, 2022. "Predicted enrollment in alternative attribute Conservation Reserve Program contracts," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    6. Geržinič, Nejc & van Cranenburgh, Sander & Cats, Oded & Lancsar, Emily & Chorus, Caspar, 2021. "Estimating decision rule differences between ‘best’ and ‘worst’ choices in a sequential best worst discrete choice experiment," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    7. Samare P. I. Huls & Emily Lancsar & Bas Donkers & Jemimah Ride, 2022. "Two for the price of one: If moving beyond traditional single‐best discrete choice experiments, should we use best‐worst, best‐best or ranking for preference elicitation?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(12), pages 2630-2647, December.
    8. Emily Lancsar & Denzil G. Fiebig & Arne Risa Hole, 2017. "Discrete Choice Experiments: A Guide to Model Specification, Estimation and Software," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(7), pages 697-716, July.
    9. Nicolas Krucien & Jonathan Sicsic & Mandy Ryan, 2019. "For better or worse? Investigating the validity of best–worst discrete choice experiments in health," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(4), pages 572-586, April.
    10. Keshtkaran, Mahsa & Churilov, Leonid & Hearne, John & Abbasi, Babak & Meretoja, Atte, 2016. "Validation of a decision support model for investigation and improvement in stroke thrombolysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 253(1), pages 154-169.
    11. Galárraga, Omar & Kuo, Caroline & Mtukushe, Bulelwa & Maughan-Brown, Brendan & Harrison, Abigail & Hoare, Jackie, 2020. "iSAY (incentives for South African youth): Stated preferences of young people living with HIV," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 265(C).
    12. Blake, Miranda R. & Lancsar, Emily & Peeters, Anna & Backholer, Kathryn, 2019. "Sugar-sweetened beverage price elasticities in a hypothetical convenience store," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 225(C), pages 98-107.
    13. Buckell, John & Hess, Stephane, 2019. "Stubbing out hypothetical bias: improving tobacco market predictions by combining stated and revealed preference data," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 93-102.
    14. Qingyin Cai & Yulian Ding & Calum Tuvey & Yuehua Zhang, 2021. "The influence of past experience on farmers’ preferences for hog insurance products: a natural experiment and choice experiment in China," The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice, Palgrave Macmillan;The Geneva Association, vol. 46(3), pages 399-421, July.
    15. Thomas Wilke & Sabine Bauer & Sabrina Mueller & Thomas Kohlmann & Rupert Bauersachs, 2017. "Patient Preferences for Oral Anticoagulation Therapy in Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Literature Review," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 10(1), pages 17-37, February.
    16. Emily Lancsar & Jemimah Ride & Nicole Black & Leonie Burgess & Anna Peeters, 2022. "Social acceptability of standard and behavioral economic inspired policies designed to reduce and prevent obesity," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(1), pages 197-214, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:10:y:2017:i:2:d:10.1007_s40271-016-0180-1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.