Development of a taxonomy for pharmaceutical interventions in HIV+ patients based on the CMO model
Objective: To agree on a proposal for pharmaceutical interventions and establish their classification taxonomy according to the CMO-Pharmaceutical Care Model (Capacity-Motivation- Opportunity). Method: A study conducted between March and May, 2016. Two phases of development were defined. A literatur...
| Autores: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2016 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Universidad de Sevilla (US) |
| Repositorio: | idUS. Depósito de Investigación de la Universidad de Sevilla |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:idus.us.es:11441/95620 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://hdl.handle.net/11441/95620 https://doi.org/10.7399/fh.2016.40.6.10567 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | HIV M-Health Motivation Pharmaceutical care Stratification |
| Sumario: | Objective: To agree on a proposal for pharmaceutical interventions and establish their classification taxonomy according to the CMO-Pharmaceutical Care Model (Capacity-Motivation- Opportunity). Method: A study conducted between March and May, 2016. Two phases of development were defined. A literature review was initially conducted. Then, the DELPHI-Rand-UCLA methodology was used in order to reach a consensus about those interventions selected, and to define the taxonomy. Fifteen (15) experts, specialists in Pharmaceutical Care for HIV+ patients, were selected. This selection was explicitly conducted, following a protocol in order to avoid any bias. An initial proposal was developed according to the interventions extracted from Phase 1. These were tentatively classified according to the CMO Model, in a category based on their design and utility. Three issues were raised from the initial question: Do you agree with the proposed classification? If not, there was an option to re-categorize. Additionally, they were asked about the importance, priority and impact to achieve pharmacotherapeutic objectives that they would assign to it. Interventions were classified according to the degree of agreement. Once a consensus was reached, the final taxonomy was established. Results: Eighteen (18) articles were finally considered. The initial proposal included 20 pharmaceutical interventions with the following classification: seven in Capacity, eight in Motivation, and five in Opportunity. Those interventions considered to have greater importance and priority were: Review and Validation, Safety, and Adherence. The interventions with the greatest impact were: Review and Validation, Coordination, Adherence, and Motivation. On the other hand, the lowest scores for importance were for: Planning and Social Coordination; and in terms of impact: Social Coordination. Conclusions: The taxonomy reached by consensus will allow to classify pharmaceutical interventions with the new model, and therefore to conduct an improved research and patient care. |
|---|