First patient-centered drug information service in Germany - A descriptive study

Annals of Pharmacotherapy

Volumn 38, Issue 12, 2004, Pages 2154-2159

  Maywald, Ulf ^a,b   Schindler, Christoph ^b   Krappweis, Jutta ^c   Kirch, Wilhelm ^b  

^a Institute of Clinical Pharmacology   (Germany)

^b DRESDEN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Germany)

^c Fed Inst Drugs and Med Devices   (Germany)

Author keywords

Drug information services; Patient education

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONSULTATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DOCTOR PATIENT RELATION; DRUG INFORMATION; FOLLOW UP; GERMANY; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HUMAN; INFORMATION CENTER; INTERNET; PATIENT CARE; PATIENT COUNSELING; PATIENT EDUCATION; PRESCRIPTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

ACCESS TO INFORMATION; CONSUMER PARTICIPATION; DRUG INFORMATION SERVICES; GERMANY; HUMANS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PATIENT EDUCATION; PATIENT-CENTERED CARE; QUESTIONNAIRES; TELEPHONE;

EID: 12844278624     PISSN: 10600280     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1345/aph.1E210     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Balint J, Shelton W. Regaining the initiative. Forging a new model of the patient-physician relationship. JAMA 1996;275:887-91.
2. Declaration of Alma-Ata. WHO. 1978. www.who.int/hpr/NPH/docs/ declaration_almaata.pdf (accessed 2004 Oct 1).
3. [Expert panel for the concerted action in the healthcare system. Requirements and economic viability: targets, prevention and patient participation] German. Bonn, 2001.
4. Grymonpre RE, Steele JW. The medication information line for the elderly: an 8-year cumulative analysis. Ann Pharmacother 1998;32:743-8. DOI 10.1345/aph.17417
5. McMahon T, Clark CM, Bailie GR. Who provides patients with drug information? BMJ 1987;294:355-6.
6. Deveugele M, Derese A, van den Brink-Muinen A, Sensing J, De Maeseneer J. Consultation length in general practice: cross sectional study in six European countries. BMJ 2002;325:472-8.
7. Krause P, Wittchen H-U, Küpper B, Pittrow D, Unger T, Sharma A-M, et al. [How to assess GP's medical care in patients with diabetes and arterial hypertension] German. FortschrMed 2003;120(suppl 1):12-8.
8. Anderson JG, Rainey MR, Eysenbach M. The impact of CyberHealthcare on the physician-patient relationship. J Med Syst 2003;27:67-84.
9. Bader SA, Braude RM. "Patient informatics": creating new partnerships in medical decision making. Acad Med Approach 1998;73:408-11.
10. Essential drugs and medicines policy: rational drug use by consumers. WHO 2002. www.who.int/medicines/strategy/rational_use/strudcons.shtml (accessed 2004 Apr 13).
11. Rodriguez C, Arnau JM, Vidal X, Laporte JR. Therapeutic consultation: a necessary adjunct to independent drug information. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1993;35:46-50.
12. Little P, Everitt H, Williamson I, Warner G, Moore M, Gould C, et al. Preferences of patients for patient centered approach to consultation in primary care: observational study. BMJ 2001;322:468-72.
13. Charnock D, Shepperd S, Needham G, Gann R. DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. J Epidemiol Commun Health 1999;53:105-11.
14. Guidelines for ATC classification and DDD assignment. Oslo: WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology, 2003.
15. World Health Organization. International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10). 10th Revision. Geneva: World Health Organization, 1992.
16. Donabedian A. The quality of care. How can it be assessed? JAMA 1988;260:1743-8.
17. Spinewine A, Dean B. Measuring the impact of medicines information services on patient care: methodological considerations. Pharm World Sci 2002;24:177-81.
18. Caamano F, Figueiras A, Gestal-Otero JJ. Influence of commercial information on prescription quantity in primary care. Eur J Public Health 2002;12:187-91.
19. Ferris D, Menyah DK. Reducing the use of inappropriate medications in the hospitalized elderly. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2001;58:1588-92.
20. Bevölkerung am 31. [Population of Saxony from 1990 to 2000 per age and gender] German. Office of Statistics of Saxony, Kamenz, 2003. www.statistik.sachsen.de/Inhalt/44fachstat/bevoelkerung/datentabellen/Sachsen. pdf (accessed 2004 Apr 13).
21. Smith GH, Einarson TR. Survey of consumer users of a statewide drug information service. Am J Hosp Pharm 1985;42:1557-61.
22. Roe CM, McNamara AM, Motheral BR. Gender- and age-related prescription drug use patterns. Ann Pharmacother 2002;36:30-9. DOI 10.1345/aph.1A113
23. Nink K, Schröder H. [Drug prescriptions per age and gender] German. In: Schwabe U, Paffrath D. Drug prescription report 2002. Heidelberg: Springer, 2003:895-906.
24. O'Brien MK, Petrie K, Raeburn J. Adherence to medication regimens: updating a complex medical issue. Med Care Rev 1992;49:435-54.
25. Monane M, Bohn RL, Gurwitz JH, Glynn RJ, Levin R, Avorn J. The effects of initial drug choice and comorbidity on antihypertensive therapy compliance: results from a population-based study in the elderly. Am J Hypertens 1997;10:697-704.
26. Dierks ML, Schwartz FW, Walter U. [Consumer information and patient sovereignty] German. In: Reibnitz C, Schnabel P-E, Hurrelmann K. [The self-responsible patient: concepts of patient education and patient sovereignty in the healthcare system]. Weinheim: Juventa, 2001:71-9.
27. Bartlett EE. Cost-benefit analysis of patient education. Patient Educ Couns 1996;26:87-91.
28. Gautier S, Bachelet H, Bordet R, Caron J. The cost of adverse drug reactions. Expert Opin Pharmacother 2003;4:319-26.
29. Schneider PJ, Gift MG, Lee YP, Rothermich EA, Sill BE. Cost of medication-related problems at a university hospital. Am J Health Syst Pharm 1995;52:2415-8.
30. Bendtsen P. Pharmacological intervention in older patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Quality of life aspects. Drugs Aging 1995;7:338-46.
31. Melnyk PS, Shevchuk YM, Remillard AJ. Impact of the dial access drug information service on patient outcome. Ann Pharmacother 2000;34:585-92. DOI 10.1345/aph.19173