BackgroundInformation technology tools such as shared patient-centered, Web-based medication platforms hold promise to support safe medication use by strengthening patient participation, enhancing patients’ knowledge, helping patients to improve self-management of their medications, and improving communication on medications among patients and health care professionals (HCPs). However, the uptake of such platforms remains a challenge also due to inadequate user involvement in the development process. Employing a user-centered design (UCD) approach is therefore critical to ensure that user’ adoption is optimal.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to identify what patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and their HCPs regard necessary requirements in terms of functionalities and usability of a shared patient-centered, Web-based medication platform for patients with T2DM.MethodsThis qualitative study included focus groups with purposeful samples of patients with T2DM (n=25), general practitioners (n=13), and health care assistants (n=10) recruited from regional health care settings in southwestern Germany. In total, 8 semistructured focus groups were conducted. Sessions were audio- and video-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and subjected to a computer-aided qualitative content analysis.ResultsAppropriate security and access methods, supported data entry, printing, and sending information electronically, and tracking medication history were perceived as the essential functionalities. Although patients wanted automatic interaction checks and safety alerts, HCPs on the contrary were concerned that unspecific alerts confuse patients and lead to nonadherence. Furthermore, HCPs were opposed to patients’ ability to withhold or restrict access to information in the platform. To optimize usability, there was consensus among participants to display information in a structured, chronological format, to provide information in lay language, to use visual aids and customize information content, and align the platform to users’ workflow.ConclusionsBy employing a UCD, this study provides insight into the desired functionalities and usability of patients and HCPs regarding a shared patient-centered, Web-based medication platform, thus increasing the likelihood to achieve a functional and useful system. Substantial and ongoing engagement by all intended user groups is necessary to reconcile differences in requirements of patients and HCPs, especially regarding medication safety alerts and access control. Moreover, effective training of patients and HCPs on medication self-management (support) and optimal use of the tool will be a prerequisite to unfold the platform’s full potential.

Purpose The purpose of this qualitative study was to investigate the challenges and strategies of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) regarding daily management of their medication regimen focusing on the role of their support networks. Methods A purposeful sample of 25 patients with T2DM was recruited from local self-help groups, general practitioner practices, and a university hospital in southwestern Germany. Four semi-structured focus groups were conducted to identify the challenges patients experienced, the strategies they used, and their collaboration with support networks to assist them in self-managing their medication regimen. Sessions were audio- and video-recorded, fully transcribed, and subjected to computer-aided qualitative content analysis, guided by the Self- and Family Management Framework (SFMF). Results Patients with T2DM experienced numerous challenges affecting medication self-management arising from their personal situation, health status and resources, characteristics of their regimen, and how health care is currently organized. Patients' self-initiated strategies included activating health care, community, social, and online resources; taking ownership of medication-related needs; and integrating medication-taking into daily life. Patients drew on self-help groups, family, and friends to discuss concerns regarding medication safety and receive experience-based information and advice for navigating within the health care system as well as practical hands-on support with daily medication self-management. Conclusions Understanding the challenges and building on strategies patients with T2DM devised help diabetes educators to better address patients' needs and priorities and guide patient-centered interventions to support patients' self-management activities. Community and social support networks operating in patients' lives need to be engaged in the self-management support.

Background In primary care, patients play a crucial role in managing care processes and handling drug treatment. A decisive factor for success is their health literacy, and several interventions have been introduced to support patients in fulfilling their responsibility. Objective The aim of this study is to assess the influence of such an intervention (ie, a medication module) within a patient-led electronic health record on patients’ health literacy. Methods We conducted a randomized controlled study among community-dwelling patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Patients were recruited from primary care practices. After randomization, patients either had access to an internet-based medication module allowing them to store their medication information, look up drug information, and print a medication schedule (intervention group), or they received an information brochure on the importance of medication schedules (control group). After 4-8 weeks, all patients were invited to attend a structured medication review (ie, follow-up visit). Data were collected via questionnaires before the start of the intervention and during the follow-up visit. The main outcome measure was the mean difference in health literacy between baseline and follow-up assessments of patients in the control and intervention groups. Results Of 116 recruited patients, 107 (92.2%) completed the follow-up assessment and were eligible for intention-to-treat analyses. Only 73 patients, of which 29 were in the intervention group, followed the study protocol and were eligible for per-protocol analysis. No differences in overall health literacy were observed in either the intention-to-treat or in the per-protocol cohorts. Reasons for a null effect might be that the cohort was not particularly enriched with participants with low health literacy, thus precluding measurable improvement (ie, ceiling effect). Moreover, the success of implementation was considered poor because both the correct application of the study procedure (ie, randomization according to the protocol and dropout of 29 patients) and the actual interaction with the medication module was modest (ie, dropout of 9 patients). Conclusions The conduct of this randomized controlled study was challenging, leaving it open whether inadequate implementation, too short of a duration, or insufficient efficacy of the intervention, as such, contributed to the null effect of this study. This clearly outlines the value of piloting complex interventions and the accompanying process evaluations.