Cited by 50Medication Adherence and CompliancePatient-Provider Communication in HealthcarePharmacy and Medical Practices

Training general practitioners in behavior change counseling to improve asthma medication adherence.

Broers, Sandra, Smets, Ellen, Bindels, Patrick, Evertsz’, Floor Bennebroek, Calff, Mart, de Haes, Hanneke·2005·Patient Education and Counseling

Abstract

Objective Adherence to asthma medication regimens is problematic in general practice. We developed and evaluated a communication training for general practitioners (GPs) to help them address medication adherence during routine consultations. This paper describes the development of the training and evaluation results of a pilot study.Methods The training was based on behavior change counseling (BCC), a technique derived from motivational interviewing. We developed a five phases BCC consultation model. Participating GPs answered questions at baseline (T0), directly after (T1) and 4-10 months after (T2) the training that assessed their attitudes and confidence regarding adherence communication. They completed evaluation forms at T1 and T2.Results The 19 participating GPs were positive about the course and the feasibility of BCC in GP consultations. Also, after the training, their attitudes and confidence had improved (p<0.05) and all reported to use BCC skills at least sometimes 4-10 months after the training.Conclusion These positive effects provide us with some hope that the training positively influenced the GP's communication behavior.Practice implications If further data on physician behavior and patient outcomes justify implementation of the training, it would then be worthwhile to also involve practice nurses.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.pec.2005.06.001

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Broers, S., Smets, E., Bindels, P., Evertsz’, F. B., Calff, M., & de Haes, H.
Affiliations
Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam (NL)
Corresponding author
Smets, Ellen
Venue
Patient Education and Counseling
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2005-09
Volume
58
Issue
3
Pages
279-287
ISSN
0738-3991 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2013983651
Cited by
50
References
53
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 4
FWCI
2.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Patient Education and Counseling (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Medication Adherence and Compliance
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmacy and Medical Practices
Keywords
asthma, medication adherence, behavior change counseling, motivational interviewing, general practitioners, physician training, physician-patient communication, consultation model, physician confidence, practice nurses
MeSH terms
Adult, Asthma, Counseling, Education, Medical, Continuing, Family Practice, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Netherlands, Patient Compliance, Pilot Projects, Statistics, Nonparametric

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review