PMCCPMCCPMCC

Search tips
Search criteria 

Advanced

 
Logo of nihpaAbout Author manuscriptsSubmit a manuscriptHHS Public Access; Author Manuscript; Accepted for publication in peer reviewed journal;
 
Clin Schizophr Relat Psychoses. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 May 11.
Published in final edited form as:
Clin Schizophr Relat Psychoses. 2009 January 1; 24(Suppl 1): S1171.
doi:  10.1016/S0924-9338(09)71404-X
PMCID: PMC2867602
NIHMSID: NIHMS67080

Antipsychotic Adherence Intervention for Veterans over 40 with Schizophrenia: Results of a Pilot Study

Abstract

This pilot study tested the feasibility, acceptability, and effect-sizes of a multimodal, individual intervention designed to optimize antipsychotic medication use in patients ≥40 years of age with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder.

Methods

We randomized 40 patients into two groups: usual care (UC) or a nine-session, manualized, antipsychotic adherence intervention (AAI). The AAI attempted to improve adherence by combining three psychosocial techniques: a) education, b) skills training, and c) alliance building. Sessions employed a semi-structured format to facilitate open communication. The primary outcome was antipsychotic adherence at study end. We obtained qualitative data regarding patient preferences for the duration and modality for receiving the adherence intervention.

Results

Compared to the UC group, a greater proportion of the AAI group was adherent post-intervention (65% vs. 55.6%; OR=1.49), a difference that was statistically not significant. The entire AAI group reported that they intended to take medications, and 75% were satisfied with the intervention.

Conclusions

The AAI was feasible and acceptable. Preliminary data on its effectiveness warrant a larger study. Qualitative data shows that patients prefer brief adherence interventions and accept telephone strategies.

Keywords: Adherence, compliance, antipsychotics, skills, education, alliance

Introduction

Medication nonadherence among patients with schizophrenia is common and costly. Within a year of hospital discharge for treatment of acute symptoms, 40–50% of patients deviate from their prescription regimen. (13) Nonadherent patients are three times more likely to relapse, (4) are 2.5 times more likely to be rehospitalized, (2) remain hospitalized twice as long, and experience deterioration in their and their caregivers’ quality of life. (58) This “revolving door phenomenon” (911) adds $2.3 billion a year to hospital costs, and of which $700 million stem from medication nonadherence. (12;13)

Population of veterans over age 50 with psychosis has risen from 49.7% to 66.1% in 2004, yet, studies seldom have assessed the risks of nonadherence in this group. Older patients with schizophrenia are more susceptible to side effects of antipsychotic drugs,(14) have complex medication regimens for multiple chronic conditions, (15;16) experience greater difficulty comprehending and managing their medication,(17) discount psychiatric treatments, and have cognitive deficits that interfere with therapy.(18) Further, the effectiveness of adherence interventions in predominantly younger samples may not generalize to older persons.(19)

This pilot study tested the feasibility, assessed the acceptability, and estimated the effect size of a multimodal, individual strategy entitled the Antipsychotic Adherence Intervention (AAI) to optimize medication adherence in veterans ≥40 years with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. The intervention was modeled on Functional Adaptation Skills Training (20) and a medication management module for schizophrenia.(21)

Methods

Intervention

We tested a nine-session, manualized AAI by combining three psychosocial techniques: a) learning to manage antipsychotic prescriptions; b) learning to communicate, organize and manage medications, and access the healthcare system; and c) building relationships with healthcare providers. These sessions involved repetition of information, role-playing, and practice in a semi-structured format to facilitate open communication. Face-to-face training occurred daily for sessions 1–3 and weekly for 4–6. Telephone training transpired monthly for sessions 7–9 to maintain a therapeutic alliance and encourage use of adherence strategies. Trainers provided support, reflective listening, open-ended questioning, confrontation avoidance, and shared problem-solving.

Usual Care

Inpatient usual care (UC) consisted of nursing care, group therapy, and 15 minutes of medication education at discharge. Outpatient UC included medications, supportive therapy, group therapy, and case management.

Participants

Participants were recruited from three inpatient units of the Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System (CAVHS). Inclusion criteria were: age ≥40 years, DSM IV (22) diagnosis of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, prescription for a maintenance antipsychotic (oral or depot), and ability to consent to and participate in the study. Exclusion criteria were: dementia, lack of transportation to outpatient sessions, and no telephone. Eligible patients were randomized to receive AAI or UC based on a computer-generated schedule.

The University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (UAMS) Institutional Review Board and the CAVHS Research and Development Committee approved the study. Each participant provided written informed consent.

Assessments

Raters blinded to group assignment conducted assessments at baseline on the inpatient unit and at four weeks and four months in the outpatient setting.

Measures

Demographics

Patients provided age, gender, ethnicity, education, marital status, living situation, usual medication supervision, physical health diagnoses, and alcohol or other substance use. Medical records indicated the psychiatric diagnosis.

Medication Adherence Assessment

Interviews with patients and caregivers were combined with pharmacy refill records into an overall assessment. Scoring details follow.

  1. Patients stated the number of prescribed doses they had taken during the previous week. They were classified as adherent if they took ≥80% of the prescribed doses. Although a specific threshold at which partial adherence with antipsychotics becomes problematic remains unknown, taking 80% of prescribed medications is a traditional cut-off point for “good adherence” and seems reasonable for patients and their providers.(23;24)
  2. Caregivers identified the number of doses the patient took during the previous week. Patients were classified as adherent if they took ≥80% of the doses.
  3. Pharmacy Refill Records(25): We reviewed the computerized pharmacy database, assumed that the patient took the medication as prescribed, and calculated the medication possession ratio (MPR). The MPR is calculated by dividing the number of pharmacy prescriptions filled by the number of pills needed to cover all noninstitutionalized days during a specified period. Any MPR score ≥0.80 was considered adherent. We calculated the MPR for the year before baseline and the four months after enrollment.
  4. Overall Assessment of Medication Adherence: Since each of the individual measures has limitations,(26) and no gold standard exists, we considered patients adherent only if all three measures indicated adherence at baseline and four months.

Participant Feedback

At the end of the study, a semi-structured interview with AAI participants determined if they had a better understanding of psychosis, symptoms, benefits of taking medications, medication side effects and their management, getting information about their medications, and communication skills. We also asked if they were better off and intended to take their medications. Additionally, we asked their preferences regarding duration of adherence intervention and mode of receiving information (paper material, DVD, or telephone).

For exploration, we administered the Quality of Well-Being Scale (QWB) (27), Positive And Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) (28), Calgary Depression Scale (CDS) (29), and Dementia Rating Scale (DRS) (30). To measure antipsychotic side-effects, we administered the Modified Simpson-Angus Extrapyramidal Scale (SAEPS) (31), Barnes Akathisia Scale (BAS) (32), and Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (AIMS) (33). To determine medication knowledge and patient attitudes, we used the 14-Point Questionnaire (14-Q),(34) Drug Attitude Inventory (DAI),(35) and Insight and Treatment Attitudes Questionnaire (ITAQ).

Statistical Analysis

We report descriptive statistics for all baseline measures. Data were examined for homogeneity of variance and normality of distribution. To identify any variable that might confound the comparisons of outcomes between the groups, we compared distributional characteristics of baseline measures between the groups with two-sample t-tests for approximately normal measures, median tests for non-normal and ordinal measures, and chi-square tests for categorical measures. We compared the groups on binary adherence measures (adhering or not) with logistic regression including group and baseline-adherence measures as independent variables. Data are included for all subjects completing at least one follow-up assessment (n=38). For dropouts, we carried forward outcomes from their last visit to the subsequent (missed) outcomes.

All analyses were conducted in SAS® Version 9.1. We report 95% confidence intervals when estimating differences or odds ratios.

Results

Recruitment and retention

We screened 157 potential participants. Of the 62 who were eligible, 40 participated. Reasons for ineligibility included inability to return to the clinic or no telephone (n=35) and lack of cognitive capacity (n=26). Two participants did not return for subsequent assessments. Average AAI attendance was 8.8 sessions out of 9. Completers (attended at least two sessions) and dropouts did not differ significantly on variables.

Baseline Sample characteristics

The mean (standard deviation) age was 51.3 (5.1) years. Most were male (95%), unmarried (85%), had schizophrenia (62.5%), managed their own medications (72.5%), and used alcohol or drugs (62.5%) in the 30 days before enrollment. The group had a mean 12.4 (1.5) years of education. A minority (32.5%) lived alone. Subjects were enrolled in the outpatient clinic (52.5%), an outreach program with monthly case management (30%), or intensive case management (12.5%). Table I compares the demographic and clinical characteristics of the UC (N=18) and AAI (N=22) groups.

At baseline, the percentage of the UC and AAI groups who were nonadherent based on the MPR was 50% and 45.5%, and “overall non-adherence” was 77.8% and 77.3%, respectively. The UC and AAI group baseline non-adherence rates reported by patients and caregivers were 55.6% and 59.1%, and 50% and 78.6%, respectively.

Participant Satisfaction and Feedback

In the exit interview by the Principal Investigator, the AAI group reported improved understanding of psychosis (47.1%), symptoms (64.7%), benefits of medications (88.2%), managing side effects (82.4%), taking medications properly (88.2%), obtaining information about medications (70.6%), tracking medications (64.7%), and communicating with providers (70.6%). All intended to take medications, and 76.5% were satisfied with the intervention.

Most (76.5%) preferred face-to-face sessions, but attendance was problematic for 41.2%. Telephone sessions were helpful to 70.6%.

Qualitative Data

A majority preferred to receive medication adherence information on paper instead of through slide shows or videotapes, preferred obtaining information in a briefer time frame than four months, and viewed telephone contact as helpful and caring.

The AAI group varied in knowledge about available treatments especially non-pharmacological interventions.

Adherence Outcomes

Using patient report, caregiver report, and MPR at four months as separate adherence outcome measures, the proportion (conditioned on baseline adherence) of adherence to AAI compared to UC were 83.33% vs. 85%, 85% vs. 81.25%, and 85% vs. 66.67%, respectively. For the composite adherence measure, the proportion for AAI vs. UC was 65% vs. 55.56% (See Table II). We did not control for baseline adherence while computing composite adherence as only one participant was adherent at baseline.

Table II
Effect of Intervention on Adherence (Percentages and Odds Ratios) - Adjusted for Baseline Adherence (except *)

Effect Size Estimation: Using an MPR ≥ 0.8 as an indicator of acceptable adherence, about 33% of the subjects in the UC group were adherent, both at baseline (13/40) and at 4-month follow-up (6/18). Assuming an OR of 2 (or 2.5 or 3) is clinically important to detect when comparing an intervention group to a UC group and assuming the true OR is at least 2 (or 2.5 or 3), a future study would need 107 (or 61 or 42) subjects in each group to have at least 0.80 probability of verifying the effectiveness of AAI at the.05 level of significance.

Discussion

The primary finding demonstrates that older veterans with schizophrenia can participate in and accept the AAI. The AAI group reported intent to take medications, and the majority was satisfied with intervention. The odds of a subject being adherent, as measured by caregiver report and MPR, were greater for the AAI than the UC group, although these were not statistically significant. Nonetheless, the study provides estimates for planning a larger study to demonstrate effectiveness.

The study provides qualitative information about veteran preferences on such interventions. Future application of the intervention should include delivery of the intervention to provide skills and education over a shorter period of time followed by sustained, brief telephone and face-to-face contact to ensure skills maintenance.

Manualized interventions have been advocated with the argument that all patients could benefit from learning medication adherence skills because of high nonadherence rates. Moreover, they provide uniform information to patients. Based on the qualitative feedback, we would argue for shorter and more targeted manualized interventions. We found that some patients had good information and skills in managing their illness and medications while others lacked basic information. One notable challenge was how to sufficiently individualize the manualized intervention. We attempted to individualize the intervention by spending less time on known material and more time on unfamiliar content or training. We suggest that the manual should allow participants to choose the modules that seem most relevant to target their needs. For example, a person with cognitive deficits may need more family/environmental support to organize the pill box; whereas, someone with sexual side effects may need education and problem solving. Incorporation of motivational interviewing (36;37) and shared decision-making (when clinicians directly elicit patient treatment preferences), (38;39) may enhance effectiveness of the intervention. Adherence to interventions may increase by targeting co-morbid substance dependence where appropriate.(40;41) Essentially, the manual should allow for using specific techniques and content to target specific skill deficits.

The study’s limitations follow: a) small sample size without sufficient power to detect small-to-moderate differences; b) inpatient recruitment and outpatient follow-up (inpatient admission in itself is a powerful intervention that possibly prevented us from detecting the difference between AAI and UC; d) an insufficient observation period to detect adherence changes; and e) veterans only sample limiting generalizability of the findings.

Overall, we found that veterans ≥40 years of age with schizophrenia were eager to learn strategies to manage their medications. They showed modest improvement in the adherence outcome measures. These preliminary findings provide estimates of effect sizes for larger, randomized controlled studies. We hope this study will stimulate further research on medication adherence interventions for older patients in schizophrenia.

Acknowledgments

Dr. Mittal’s time was supported by the South Central VA Health Care Network’s Research/Career Development Grant Program.

Reference List

1. Cramer JA, Rosenheck R. Compliance with medication regimens for mental and physical disorders. Psychiatr Serv. 1998;49(2):196–201. [PubMed]
2. Gilmer TP, Dolder CR, Lacro JP, Folsom D, Lindamer L, Garcia P, Jeste DV. Adherence to treatment with antipsychotic medication and healthcare costs among medicaid beneficiaries with schizophrenia. Am J Psychiatry. 2004;161(4):692–9. [PubMed]
3. Lacro JP, Dunn LB, Dolder CR, Leckband SG, Jeste DV. Prevalence of and risk factors for medication nonadherence inpatients with schizophrenia: A comprehensive review of recent literature. J Clin Psychiatry. 2002;63(10):892–909. [PubMed]
4. Perkins DO. Adherence to antipsychotic medications. J Clin Psychiatry. 1999;60(Suppl 21):25–30. [PubMed]
5. Postrado LT, Lehman AF. Quality of life and clinical predictors of rehospitalization of persons with severe mental illness. Psychiatr Serv. 1995;46(11):1161–5. [PubMed]
6. Fenton WS, Blyler CR, Heinssen RK. Determinants of medication compliance in schizophrenia: Empirical and clinical findings. Schizophr Bull. 1997;23(4):637–51. [PubMed]
7. Grunebaum MF, Weiden PJ, Olfson M. Medication supervision and adherence of persons with psychotic disorders in residential treatment settings: A pilot study. J Clin Psychiatry. 2001;62(5):394–9. [PubMed]
8. Reine G, Lancon C, Di TS, Sapin C, Auquier P. Depression and subjective quality of life in chronic phase schizophrenic patients. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2003 Oct;108(4):297–303. [PubMed]
9. Langdon PE, Yágüez L, Brown J, Hope A. Who walks through the ‘revolving-door’ of a British psychiatry hospital? Journal of Mental Health. 2001;10(5):525–33.
10. Gastal FL, Andreoli SB, Quintana MIS, Gameiro MA, Leite SO, McGrath J. Predicting the revolving door phenomenon among patients with schizophrenic, affective disorders and non-organic psychoses. Journal of Public Health. 2000 Jun;34(3):280–5. [PubMed]
11. Haywood TW, Kravitz HM, Grossman LS, Cavanaugh JL, Jr, Davis JM, Lewis DA. Predicting the “revolving door” phenomenon among patients with schizophrenic, schizoaffective, and affective disorders. Am J Psychiatry. 1995;152(6):856–61. [PubMed]
12. Weiden PJ, Olfson M. Cost of relapse in schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull. 1995;21(3):419–29. [PubMed]
13. Svarstad BL, Shireman TI, Sweeney JK. Using drug claims data to assess the relationship of medication adherence with hospitalization and costs. Psychiatr Serv. 2001;52:805–11. [PubMed]
14. Caligiuri MR, Jeste DV, Lacro JP. Antipsychotic-Induced movement disorders in the elderly: Epidemiology and treatment recommendations. Drugs Aging. 2000;17(5):363–84. [PubMed]
15. Jeste DV, Gladsjo JA, Lindamer LA, Lacro JP. Medical comorbidity in schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull. 1996;22(3):413–30. [PubMed]
16. Friedman JI, Harvey PD, McGurk SR, White L, Parrella M, Raykov T, Coleman T, Adler DN, Davis KL. Correlates of change in functional status of institutionalized geriatric schizophrenic patients: focus on medical comorbidity. Am J Psychiatry. 2002 Aug;159(8):1388–94. [PubMed]
17. Yamada H, Sugiyama T, Ashida T, Ohwaki H, Fujii J. Medication management skill and regimen compliance are deteriorated in the elderly even without obvious dementia. Yakugaku Zasshi. 2001;121:187–90. [PubMed]
18. Arean PA. Cognitive behavioral therapy with older adults. The Behavior Therapist. 1993;17:236–9.
19. Jeste DV, Alexopoulos GS, Bartels SJ, Cummings J, Gallo JJ, Gottlieb GL, Halpain MC, Palmer BW, Patterson TL, Reynolds CF, et al. Consensus statement on the upcoming crisis in geriatric mental health: Research agenda for the next two decades. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1999;56:848–53. [PubMed]
20. Patterson TL, McKibbin CL, Taylor MJ, Goldman S, Davila-Fraga W, Bucardo J, Jeste DV. Functional Adaptation Skills Training (FAST): A pilot psychosocial intervention study in middle-aged and older patients with chronic psychotic disorders. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2003;11(1):17–23. [PubMed]
21. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Consultants. Modules in the UCLA social and independent living skill series. Camarillo: Psychiatric Rehabilitation Consultants; 1991.
22. Spitzer RL, Williams JB, Gibbon M, First MB. Structured clinical interview for the DSM-IV. Washington, D.C: American Psychiatric Association; 1994.
23. Gilmer T, Dolder C, Lacro J, Folsom D, Lindamer L, Garcia P, Jeste DV. Adherence to treatment with antipsychotic medication and health care costs among medicaid beneficiaries with schizophrenia. Am J Psychiatry. 2004;161(4):692–9. [PubMed]
24. Osterberg L, Blaschke T. Adherence to medication. N Engl J Med. 2005;353(3):487–97. [PubMed]
25. Valenstein M, Copeland LA, Blow FC, McCarthy JF, Zeber JE, Gillon L, Bingham CR, Stavenger T. Pharmacy data identify poorly adherent patients with schizophrenia at increased risk for admission. Med Care. 2002;40(8):630–9. [PubMed]
26. Velligan DI, Lam YW, Glahn DC, Barrett JA, Maples NJ, Ereshefsky L, Miller AL. Defining and assessing adherence to oral antipsychotics: a review of the literature. Schizophr Bull. 2006 Oct;32(4):724–42. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
27. Kaplan RM, Anderson JP. The Quality of Well-Being scale: Rationale for a single quality of life index. In: Rosser R, Walker SR, editors. Quality of Life: Assessment and Application. London: MTP Press; 1988. pp. 51–77.
28. Kay S, Fiszbein A, Opler LA. The Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) for schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull. 1987;13(2):261–76. [PubMed]
29. Addington D, Addington J, Maticka-Tyndale E. Assessing depression in schizophrenia: The Calgary Depression Scale. Br J Psychiatry. 1993;163(Suppl 22):39–44. [PubMed]
30. Mattis S. Dementia Rating Scale. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc; 1973.
31. Sweet RA, DeSensi EG, Zubenko GS. Reliability and applicability of movement disorder rating scales in the elderly. J Neuropsychiat Clin Neurosci. 1993;5(1):56–60. [PubMed]
32. Barnes TRE. A rating scale for drug-induced akathisia. Br J Psychiatry. 1989;154:672–6. [PubMed]
33. Guy W. Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale. In: Guy W, editor. ECDEU Assessment Manual for Psychopharmacology - Revised. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; 1976. pp. 534–7. Pub. No. (ADM) 76–338.
34. Seltzer A, Roncar I, Garfinkel P. Effect of patient education on medication compliance. Can J Psychiatry. 1980;25:638–45. [PubMed]
35. Hogan TP, Awad AG, Eastwood R. A self-report scale predictive of drug compliance in schizophrenics: Reliability and discriminative validity. Psychol Med. 1983;13:177–83. [PubMed]
36. Tay SE. Compliance therapy: an intervention to improve inpatients’ attitudes toward treatment. J Psychosoc Nurs Ment Health Serv. 2007;45(6):29–37. [PubMed]
37. Rusch N, Corrigan PW. Motivational interviewing to improve insight and treatment adherence in schizophrenia. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal. 2002;26:23–32. [PubMed]
38. Deegan PE. The lived experience of using psychiatric medication in the recovery process and a shared decision-making program to support it. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal. 2007;31:62–9. [PubMed]
39. Hamann J, Cohen R, Leucht S, Busch R, Kissling W. Shared decision making and long-term outcome in schizophrenia treatment. The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry. 2007;68(7):992–7. [PubMed]
40. Tsuang J, Fong TW. Treatment of patients with schizophrenia and substance abuse disorders. Current Pharmaceutical Design. 2004;10(18):2249–61. [PubMed]
41. Drake RE, Mueser K. Psychosocial approaches to dual diagnosis. Schizophr Bull. 2000;26:105–18. [PubMed]