Pharmacy World and Science

, Volume 28, Issue 4, pp 239–247 | Cite as

Drug-related problems in patients with angina pectoris, type 2 diabetes and asthma – interviewing patients at home

  • Lotte Stig HaugbølleEmail author
  • Ellen Westh Sørensen
Research Article


Objective of the study

The objective of the overall study was to create a foundation for improving the quality of counselling practice in pharmacies. The research question addressed in this sub-study was to describe drug-related problems (DRPs) in terms of frequency as well as type in people with angina pectoris, type 2 diabetes and asthma, as the problems were identified through medication reviews and home interviews.

Setting and method

During their pharmacy internships, fourth-year pharmacy students collected data for the study in 1999, 2000 and 2001 by carrying out medication reviews, conducting home interviews and registering DRPs for 414 patients. Data were collected from the following patient groups in the years indicated: in 1999, 123 angina pectoris patients; in 2000, 192 type 2 diabetes patients, and in 2001, 99 asthma patients. The interviews dealt with the patient’s drug-related experiences, knowledge, perceptions, problems and actions. The DRPs were registered according to the so-called PI-Doc system.


A medication review was supplemented by qualitative interviews with the three patient groups, which revealed a relatively high number of DRPs compared to other studies. An average of 2.8 DRPs were identified per angina pectoris patient; 4.1 DRPs per type 2 diabetes patient and 4.0 DRPs per asthma patient. “Inappropriate use of medicines by the patient” and “Other problems” (such as limited knowledge of the illness, inappropriate lifestyle, fear of medication, lack of information, etc.) were the two most common DRP sub-categories identified in all three patient groups.


The study provided a profile of a pharmacy-based population of 414 patients visiting the pharmacy, all of whom are at high risk of experiencing drug-related problems. Pharmacy staff needs to take this high rate of DRPs in people with angina pectoris, asthma and type 2 diabetes into account when dispensing medicines to and advising patients from the three groups, especially when explaining how to use medicines appropriately.


Angina pectoris Asthma Type 2 diabetes Drug-related problems Home interviews Medication review Patient perspective Diabetes DRP 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



The authors are very grateful to the entire project group, the 229 pharmacy students, the 414 patients interviewed and pharmacy staffs for their contribution to this study. We would also like to thank the Pharmacy Foundation of 1991 for their financial support, and the members of the Research Centre for Quality in Medicine Use, which provided professional support and under whose auspices the study was organised.


  1. 1.
    van Mil JF, Westerlund LT, Hersberger KE, Schaefer MA. Drug-related problem classification systems. Ann Pharmacother 2004;38(5):859–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kane MP, Briceland LL, Hamilton RA. Solving drug-related problems in the professional experience program. Am J Pharm Edu 1993;57:347–51.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gordon W, Malyuk D, Taki J. Use of Health-Record Abstracting to Document Pharmaceutical Care Activities. Can J Hosp Pharm 2000;53(3):199–205.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Angaran DM. Quality assurance to quality improvement: measuring and monitoring pharmaceutical care. Am J Hosp Pharm 1991;48:1901–07.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Britten N. Lay views of drugs and medicines: orthodox and unorthodox accounts. In: Williams SJ, Calnan M, editors. Modern medicine-lay perspectives and experiences. London: UCL Press; 1996:48–73, ISBN-number: 18-572-831-8X.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Calnan M. Health and illness – the lay perspective. London, New York: Tavistock Publications; 1987, ISBN-number: 04-2279-420-1.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fallsberg M. Reflections on medicines and medication – a qualitative analysis among people on long-term drug regimens. Linköping Studies in Education. Dissertations, 1991;31, ISBN-number: 91-7870-799-4.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hansen EH, Launsø L. Drugs and users – problems and new directions. Health Promot 1988;3(3):241–8Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Timm HU. Patienten i centrum? Brugerundersøgelser, lægperspektiver og kvalitetsudvikling. [Is the focus on the patient? User study, user perspective and quality improvement. In Danish]. DSI • Danish Institute for Health Services Research and Development; 1997, Report, ISBN-number: 87-7488-335-6. Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Haugbølle LS, Devantier K, Frydenlund B. A user perspective on type-1 diabetes: sense of illness, search for freedom and the role of the pharmacy. Patient Educ Couns 2002;47:361–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Knudsen P, Hansen EH, Traulsen JM, Eskildsen K. Changes in self-concept while using SSRI antidepressants. Qual Health Res 2002;12(7):932–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hassell K, Noyce P, Rogers A, Harris J, Wilkinson J. Advice provided in British community pharmacies: what people want and what they get. J Health Ser Res Policy 1998;3(4):219–25.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stevenson FA, Barry CA, Britten N, Barber N, Bradley CP. Doctor–patient communication about drugs: the evidence for shared decision making. Soc Sci Med 2000;50:829–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Salmon P, Peters S, Stanley I. Patients’ perceptions of medical explanations for somatisation disorders: qualitative analysis. BMJ 1999;318:372–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Adamsen L, Tewes M. Discrepancy between patient perspectives, staff’s documentation and reflections on basic nursing care. Scand J Caring Sci 2000;14(2):120–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Klasen H, Goodman R, Goodman R. Parents and GPs at cross-purposes over hyperactivity: a qualitative study of possible barriers to treatment. Brit J Gen Prac 2000;50:199–202.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Haugbølle LS, Sørensen EW, Gundersen B, Petersen KH, Lorentzen L. Basing pharmacy counselling on the perspective of the angina pectoris patient. Phar World Sci 2002;24(2):71–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Paulino EK, Bouvy ML, Gastelurrutia MG, Guerreiro M, Buurma H. Drug related problems identified by European community pharmacists in patients discharged from hospital. Pharm World Sci 2004;26:353–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Titley-Lake C, Barber N. Drug related problems in the elders of the British Virgin Islands. Int J Pharm Pract 2000;8:53–9.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sturgess IK, McElnay JC, Hughes CM, Crealey G. Community pharmacy based provision of pharmaceutical care to older patients. Pharm World Sci 2003;25(5):218–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Australian Government – Department of Health and Ageing. Home Medicines Review. Available from Website viewed December 15th, 2005.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Haugbølle LS, Sørensen EW, Henriksen HH. Medication- and illness-related factual knowledge, perceptions and behaviour in angina pectoris patients. Patient Educ Couns 2002;47:281–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sørensen EW, Haugbølle LS, Herborg H, Tomsen DV. Improving situated learning in pharmacy internship. Pharm Educ 2005;5(3/4):223–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cornwall A, Jewkes R. What is participatory research? Soc Sci Med 1995;41(12):1667–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gilbert AL, Roughead EE, Beilby J, Mott K, Barrarr JD. Collaborative medication management services: improving patient care. Med J Austr 2002;177:189–92.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Meijer WM, de Smit DJ, Jurgens RA, de Jong-van den Berg LTW. Pharmacists’ role in improving awareness about folic acid: a pilot study on the process of introducing an intervention in pharmacy practice. Int J Pharm Pract 2004;12:29–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Anon. Managing care of angina patients in the community: a model of good pharmacy practice. Int Pharm J 1998;12(Suppl IV):2–4.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Churton M. Theory and method. London: Macmillan Press Ltd; 2000, ISBN-number: 033368110X.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Fallsberg M, Herborg HH, Væggemose U. How asthma patients think and act. Internal report. Denmark: Pharmakon; 1998.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Viney L, Westbrook M. Coping with chronic illness: strategy preferences, changes in preferences and associated emotional reactions. J Chron Dis 1984;37(6):489–502.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Antonovsky A. Unravelling the mystery of health. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1987.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lisper L, Isacson D, Sjödén PO, Bingefors K. Medicated hypertensive patients’ views and experience of information and communication concerning antihypertensive drugs. Patient Educ Couns 1997;32:147–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Pharmakon. Forebyggelse af lægemiddelrelaterede problemer gennem apotekets ældre service [Preventing drug-related problems through the pharmacy’s elder service project. In Danish]; 1997, Report.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Schaefer M. Basic principles for a coding system of drug-related problems: PI-Doc. Abstract at the International Working Conference on Outcome Measurements in Pharmaceutical Care; Pharmaceutical Care Network Europe January 26–29. Pharmakon, Danish College of Pharmacy Practice, Denmark; 1998.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Schaefer M. Discussing basic principles for a coding system of drug-related problems: the case of PI-Doc. Pharm World Sci 2002;24(4):120–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Enger K. NSDstat For Windows 95/98NT. Norsk amfundsvidenskabelig data-tjeneste [The Norwegian social science data service]; 1999.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kvale S. Interviews – an introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Hans Reitzels Forlag: Copenhagen; 1996, ISBN-number: 08-0395-819-6.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Westerlund T, Almarsdóttir AB. Drug-related problems and pharmacy interventions in community practice. Int J Pharm Pract 1999;7:40–50.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Granås AG, Bates I. The effect of pharmaceutical review of repeat prescriptions in general practice. Int J Pharm Pract 1999;7:264–75.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hugtenburg JG, Blom AThG, Gopie CTW, Beckeringh JJ. Communicating with patients the second time they present their prescription at the pharmacy – discovering patients’ drug-related problems. Pharm World Sci 2004;26:328–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Emmerton L, Shaw J, Kheir N. Asthma management by New Zealand pharmacists: a pharmaceutical care demonstration project. J Clin Pharm Ther 2003;28:395–402.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Nilsson JLG, Andersson Å, Kälvemark S, Lieberman-Ram H, Ulenius B, Wendel A, et al. Surveys of drug-related therapy problems of patients using medicines for allergy, asthma and pain. Int J Pharm Pract 2000;8:198–203.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Blix HS, Viktil KK, Reikvam Å, Moger TA, Hjemaas BJ, Pretsch T, et al. The majority of hospitalised patients have drug-related problems: results from a prospective study in general hospitals. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2004;60:651–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Westerlund T, Almarsdóttir AB, Melander A. Factors incluencing the detection rate of drug-related problems in community pharmacy. Pharm World Sci 1999;21(6):245–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Scwartzkoff J. Evaluation of the Home Medicines Review Program: pharmacy component. Canberra: Urbis Keys Young; 2005, ISBN.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Tully MP, Hassell K, Noyce P. Advice-giving in community pharmacies in the UK. J Health Serv Res Policy 1997;2:38–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Hepler CD, Strand LM. Oppontunities and responsibilities in pharmaceutical care. Am J Hosp Pharm 1990;47(3): 533–43.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lotte Stig Haugbølle
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ellen Westh Sørensen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy, Section for Social Pharmacy and Research Centre for Quality in Medicine UseThe Danish University of Pharmaceutical SciencesCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations