Skip to main content

Older Patients’ Perceptions of Medication Importance and Worth

An Exploratory Pilot Study

Drugs & Aging volume 25, pages 1061–1075 (2008)Cite this article

Abstract

Background: Cost-related medication non-adherence may be influenced by patients’ perceived importance of their medications.

Objectives: This exploratory pilot study addresses three related but distinct questions: Do patients perceive different levels of importance among their medications? What factors influence perceptions of medication importance? Is perceived importance associated with perceived worth of medications, and does expense impact on that association?

Methods: Study participants included individuals aged ≥60 years who were taking three or more prescription drugs. Semi-structured, in-person interviews were conducted to measure how patients rated their medications in terms of importance, expense and worth. Factors that influenced medication importance were identified using qualitative analysis. Ordinal logistic regression analyses were employed to examine the association between perceived importance and perceived worth of medications, and the impact of expense on that association.

Results: For 143 prescription drugs reported by 20 participants, the weighted mean rating of medication importance was 8.2 (SD 1.04) on a scale from 0 (not important at all) to 10 (most important). Patients considered 38% of these medications to be expensive. The weighted mean rating of worth was 8.4 (SD 1.46) on a scale from 0 (not worth it at all) to 10 (most worth). Three major factors influenced medication importance: drug-related (characteristics, indications, effects and alternatives); patient-related (knowledge, attitudes and health); and external (the media, healthcare and family caregivers, and peers). Regression analyses showed an association between perceived importance and perceived worth for inexpensive medications (odds ratio [OR] 2.23; p = 0.002) and an even greater association between perceived importance and perceived worth for expensive medications (OR 4.29; p < 0.001).

Discussion: This study provides preliminary evidence that elderly patients perceive different levels of importance for their medications based on factors beyond clinical efficacy. Their perception of importance influences how they perceive their medications’ worth, especially for medications of high costs. Understanding how patients perceive medication importance may help in the development of interventions to reduce cost-related non-adherence.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

49,54 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Table I
Table II
Table III
Table IV
Table V

References

  1. Briesacher BA, Gurwitz JH, Soumerai SB. Patients at-risk for cost-related medication nonadherence: a review of the literature. J Gen Intern Med 2007; 22(6): 864–71

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Kaufman DW, Kelly JP, Rosenberg L, et al. Recent patterns of medication use in the ambulatory adult population of the United States: the Slone survey. JAMA 2002; 287(3): 337–44

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Heisler M, Langa KM, Eby EL, et al. The health effects of restricting prescription medication use because of cost. Med Care 2004; 42(7): 626–34

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Safran DG, Neuman P, Schoen C, et al. Prescription drug coverage and seniors: findings from a 2003 national survey. Health Affairs 2005; Suppl Web Exclusives: W5-152–W5-166

    Google Scholar 

  5. Steinman MA, Sands LP, Covinsky KE. Self-restriction of medications due to cost in seniors without prescription coverage. J Gen Intern Med 2001; 16(12): 793–9

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Leibowitz A, Manning WG, Newhouse JP. The demand for prescription drugs as a function of cost-sharing. Soc Sci Med 1985; 21(10): 1063–9

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Lohr KN, Brook RH, Kamberg CJ, et al. Use of medical care in the Rand Health Insurance Experiment: diagnosis- and service-specific analyses in a randomized controlled trial. Med Care 1986; 24 (9 Suppl.): S1–87

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Goldman DP, Joyce GF, Escarce JJ, et al. Pharmacy benefits and the use of drugs by the chronically ill. JAMA 2004; 291(19): 2344–50

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Tseng CW, Brook RH, Keeler E, et al. Cost-lowering strategies used by Medicare beneficiaries who exceed drug benefit caps and have a gap in drug coverage. JAMA 2004; 292(8): 952–60

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Harris BL, Stergachis A, Ried LD. The effect of drug copayments on utilization and cost of Pharmaceuticals in a health maintenance organization. Med Care 1990; 28(10): 907–17

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Piette JD, Heisler M, Wagner TH. Cost-related medication underuse among chronically ill adults: the treatments people forgo, how often, and who is at risk. Am J Public Health 2004; 94(10): 1782–7

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Soumerai SB, Ross-Degnan D, Avorn J, et al. Effects of Medicaid drug-payment limits on admission to hospitals and nursing homes. N Engl J Med 1991; 325(15): 1072–7

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Tamblyn R, Laprise R, Hanley JA, et al. Adverse events associated with prescription drug cost-sharing among poor and elderly persons. JAMA 2001; 285(4): 421–9

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Boardman AE, Greenberg DH, Vining AR, et al. Cost-benefit analysis: concepts and practice. Upper Saddle River (NJ): Prentice Hall, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  15. Mitchell RC, Carson RT. Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent value method. Baltimore (MD): Johns Hopkins Press, 1989

    Google Scholar 

  16. Davis TC, Long SW, Jackson RH, et al. Rapid estimate of adult literacy in medicine: a shortened screening instrument. Fam Med 1993; 25(6): 391–5

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Davis TC, Michielutte R, Askov EN, et al. Practical assessment of adult literacy in health care. Health Educ Behav 1998; 25(5): 613–24

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Glaser B, Strauss AL. The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Chicago (IL): Aldine, 1967

    Google Scholar 

  19. Gilbert N. Researching social life. London: Sage Publications, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  20. Miles MB, Huberman AM. Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. London: Sage Publications, 1994

    Google Scholar 

  21. Long J, Freese J. Regression models for categorical outcomes using stata. 2nd ed. College Station (TX): Stata Press, 2005

    Google Scholar 

  22. Tjia J, Givens J, Karlawish J, et al. Beneath the surface: discovering the unvoiced concerns of older adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Health Educ Res 2008; 23(1): 40–52

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Guest G, Bunce A, Johnson L. How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods 2006; 18: 59–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Weiler SC, Romney AK. Systematic data collection. Qualitative research methods. Vol. 10. Newbury Park (CA): Sage Publications, 1988

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this study. During part of this study, Dr Lau was supported by a K-01 career development award from the National Institutes of Health (grant no.: 5K01AG027295-02). The authors have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this study.

The authors are very grateful to Mr Scott Anderson, Ms Theresa Kowalski, Ms Shalini Singh, Mr Andrew T. Harris and Dr Adnan Arseven for their assistance throughout this project. The authors also sincerely thank Dr Kelly Michelson for her comments on an earlier version of this article.

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Gerontological Society of America 60th Annual Scientific Meeting in San Francisco, CA, USA on 18 November 2007.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Buehler Center on Aging, Health & Society, Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA

    Denys T. Lau & Leslie Halpern

  2. Meyers Primary Care Institute, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA

    Becky A. Briesacher & Kathleen Mazor

  3. Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, USA

    Nathaniel D. Mercaldo

  4. Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, USA

    E. Charles Osterberg

  5. Medical Sciences Division, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

    Mary Jarzebowski

  6. Division of Geriatric Medicine, Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA

    June M. McKoy

Authors
  1. Denys T. Lau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Becky A. Briesacher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nathaniel D. Mercaldo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Leslie Halpern
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. E. Charles Osterberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Mary Jarzebowski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. June M. McKoy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Kathleen Mazor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Denys T. Lau.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lau, D.T., Briesacher, B.A., Mercaldo, N.D. et al. Older Patients’ Perceptions of Medication Importance and Worth. Drugs Aging 25, 1061–1075 (2008). https://doi.org/10.2165/0002512-200825120-00007

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/0002512-200825120-00007

Keywords

  • Esomeprazole
  • Tegaserod
  • Importance Rating
  • Financial Hardship
  • Medication Importance