Skip to Content
MDPIMDPI
IJERPHInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
PDF
  • Article
  • Open Access

6 February 2023

A Pilot Study on Pharmacists’ Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices towards Medication Dysphagia via Asynchronous Online Focus Group Discussion

,
and
Department of Pharmacy, National University of Singapore, 18 Science Drive 4, Singapore 117559, Singapore
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health2023, 20(4), 2858;https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20042858
This article belongs to the Special Issue Medication Safety and Pharmacy Practice
Version Notes
Order Reprints
Review Reports

Abstract

Medication dysphagia (MD) refers to difficulty swallowing oral medications. To cope, patients may inappropriately modify or skip medications, leading to poorer outcomes. Little is known about healthcare professionals’ (HCPs’) perspectives in managing MD. This study investigated pharmacists’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) in caring for patients with MD. An asynchronous online focus group was pilot tested in seven pharmacists, with up to two questions posted daily on an online platform over 15 days. Thematic analysis of the transcripts revealed five interrelated themes: (1) knowledge about MD; (2) management of MD; (3) expectations of patient proactivity; (4) desire for objectivity; (5) professional roles. The findings provided insight into pharmacists’ KAP and may be incorporated into a full-scale study involving various HCPs.

1. Introduction

Solid oral dosage forms (SODFs) are common due to their convenience and ease of accurate dosing [1]. Their use is expected to increase alongside growing chronic disease burden in an ageing society [2,3]. Therapeutic efficacy depends on the patient’s ability to swallow SODFs. However, 10–40% of patients reportedly experienced medication dysphagia (MD) [4,5], defined as the subjective sensation of difficulty swallowing oral medications, solid or liquid, even in otherwise healthy persons. The scope of this study is limited to SODFs due to its predominance [1].
There are two distinct terms that overlap with MD—clinical dysphagia (CD) and medication-induced dysphagia (MID). CD is the difficulty or disability transferring solids or liquids from the mouth to the esophagus due to the dysfunction of one or more of the physiological processes involved in swallowing [5,6,7,8]. Persons with MD do not necessarily have CD and vice versa, although they may coexist [4,5,9,10,11,12,13]. This distinction is supported by opposing epidemiological trends [4,14] and different reported causes [1,15]. The prevalence of MD peaks early and declines with age; on the other hand, the prevalence of CD increases with age [4,14]. The most common causes of MD and CD are aversion to medications [1] and neurological conditions [15], respectively. Regardless, they appear inconsistently and are easily misdiagnosed, resulting in unnecessary interventions in patients with CD who are capable of swallowing SODFs [16,17]. MID, on the other hand, is CD resulting from side effects of medications such as olanzapine and quetiapine [8,15].
A review of the literature revealed frequent overlaps in recommendations for MD management, with dosage form modification (DFM) consistently being the last choice [4,5,18,19]. For the purposes of this study, common recommendations have been summarized into an MD management plan (Figure 1) to act as a reference point for comparison with current practices.
Figure 1. Medication dysphagia management plan summarizing common recommendations.
DFM includes, but is not limited to, cutting, crushing, or chewing tablets, opening capsules, and mixing SODF contents with fluids for swallowing or administration via enteral tubes; it excludes instances where DFM is by design, such as chewable or effervescent tablets. DFM may alter a medication’s pharmacokinetic profile and efficacy, increase the risk of adverse effects, or result in incomplete dosing [4,5,18,20]. Persons modifying cytotoxic or hormonal medications without adequate protection are also exposed to hazards [5,20]. Since DFM constitutes off-label use, healthcare professionals (HCPs) are liable for any resultant harm that patients may suffer [20,21].
Despite the availability of MD management strategies, its management by HCPs is inadequate [14]. Studies in community settings across various countries showed that MD was largely unaddressed [1,13,14,19] as most patients were not asked about difficulties with swallowing medications by HCPs; some HCPs did nothing even when notified by patients. DFM appeared to be HCPs’ default option to address MD despite suitable alternative drugs or dosage forms being available [4,20]. Studies showed that among HCP-modified medications, up to 32% were unsuitable for modification [19,22] and 44% were without prescribers’ knowledge [19,20].
MD is likely to remain unaddressed without HCPs’ proactivity. Studies consistently found that most patients would not voluntarily inform HCPs about MD [1,4,13,23]. To cope with MD, patients may adopt inappropriate strategies. A study found that 58.8% of patients turned to DFM, despite 49.4% of them being unaware of its potential implications [1], which include the aforementioned risks, and even death [14,16]. Alternatively, up to 68.7% of MD patients resorted to non-adherence [24], affecting clinical outcomes, increasing morbidity, mortality, and unnecessary healthcare costs. Non-adherent patients have twice the mortality risk of their adherent counterparts [19]. Those who remain adherent without DFM face the risk of choking, lodging of SODFs in the esophagus, and mucosal injury [9]. Hence, HCPs’ proper management of MD is crucial.
Studies on MD have focused on patients’ perspectives without expanding on HCPs’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP). A KAP study can reveal what is known (knowledge), believed (attitude), and done (practiced) from HCPs’ perspectives in the context of MD. It provides information for better understanding on the topic of MD, as well as identifies needs and barriers which help in the development and implementation of interventions to address MD [25]. Pharmacists’ roles in the management of MD include assessing and advising of the suitability of modifying SODFs, as well as proposing alternatives to SODFs that are not suitable for modification. This study aimed to conduct a pilot study on pharmacists to investigate their KAP in caring for patients with MD.

2. Materials and Methods

This study adopted an inductive qualitative study design to investigate the KAP of pharmacists in caring for MD patients, where existing knowledge is scant. An asynchronous online focus group (AOFG) was utilized to elicit a breadth of responses through participant interactions. Although typically used when studying vulnerable persons or sensitive topics, its adoption here was deemed advantageous for various reasons [26,27,28] (Table 1).
Table 1. Features of the AOFG format and corresponding postulated benefits.

2.1. Ethics

Ethics approval was obtained from the National University of Singapore Pharmacy Ethics Committee (PHA-DERC-14).

2.2. AOFG Platform

Platforms from published papers [28,30,31,32,33,34,35] and Google [36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50] were identified and evaluated. A set of criteria (Supplementary Table S1) was adapted for evaluating platforms [51]. FocusGroupIt was chosen for fulfilling key criteria, acceptable pricing scheme, and ease-of-use.

2.3. AOFG Discussion Guide

The development of the discussion guide was shaped by prior literature review of MD [1,4,5,9,10,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,23,24]. Question sequencing was based on flow of ideas and progressive complexity [52]. Upfront provision of guiding and probing questions provided participants with direction and ample opportunity to develop forthright responses [28]. A scenario-based question about patients experiencing MD, with a follow-up question revealing their recent history of stroke, was included to understand how pharmacists would respond when presented with patients with MD and medical history of varying severities. Questions were internally refined, and then reviewed by four experienced pharmacists for face and content validity.

2.4. Participants and Recruitment

Pharmacists were recruited via convenience sampling. Inclusion included current involvement in direct patient care (i.e., those working in nursing homes, hospitals, or the community) and possession of a device with internet access. Data saturation was not a consideration in this pilot study.
Prospective participants were contacted via email. Participants’ consent and contact details for dissemination of invitation links and reminders were collected via email replies. Subsequently, participants were emailed invitation links and notified of the start date. Of the 9 pharmacists who responded, 2 declined, owing to their busy work schedule. A prior relationship had not been established with the moderator, LJT.

2.5. Procedure

The study protocol was developed based on common practices and guiding principles outlined in the existing literature [26,27,28]. Seven participants were recruited. This number was within the ideal range (6–8) of a group size [26,28] to optimize participant interaction and produce manageable volumes of data [28]. Homogeneity of profession was maintained to facilitate rapport-building [26]. Platform-assigned pseudonyms maintained participant anonymity.
The AOFG was conducted over 15 days, with 1 or 2 questions posted each day. An open-topic thread was created for discussing outstanding topics or providing feedback [29]. Participants could view and post responses at any time. Although responses were optional, participants were encouraged to reply to all questions and engage others in discussion. Participants’ responses were downloaded from the platform immediately after the AOFG’s conclusion.
Moderator interactions were clearly defined to avoid potential introduction of bias. They included twice-daily checks for participation or technical difficulties, posting follow-up questions, and removing any rule-breaking responses. Notifications and reminders for AOFG participation were disseminated on Days 8, 12, and 15.

2.6. Data Analysis

Thematic analysis was conducted using Braun and Clarke’s 6-phase framework [53,54], taking semantic and latent-level approaches [53,55], and open coding to facilitate the inductive identification of themes [55]. Transcripts were read repeatedly for familiarization. Themes were iteratively identified and coded by 1 independent coder with consensus among all authors. They were then reviewed by all 3 authors for the refinement and identification of subthemes and relationships, and then named and defined by discussion and consensus. An Excel spreadsheet was used for coding and thematic analysis.

3. Results

Participants comprised five public hospital pharmacists and two community pharmacists. The completion rate for the 12 main guiding questions was 89.3%. One participant answered only Questions 1–4. Hence, agreement from six or more participants constituted group consensus.
Two minor themes describing participants’ knowledge and management of MD and three major themes reflecting participants’ attitudes were derived (Figure 2). Corresponding exemplar quotes are shown in Table 2, Table 3, Table 4, Table 5 and Table 6.
Figure 2. Thematic map of five themes derived from the thematic analysis. Major themes reflecting attitudes in MD management are represented by ovals. Minor themes describing knowledge and practices in MD management are represented by hexagons. Subthemes are represented by rectangles and connected to main themes by plain lines. Relationships between themes are represented by arrows.
Table 2. Minor theme of knowledge about medication dysphagia and corresponding exemplar quotes.
Table 3. Minor theme of management of medication dysphagia, corresponding subthemes, and exemplar quotes.
Table 4. Major theme of expectations of patient proactivity, corresponding subthemes, and exemplar quotes.
Table 5. Major theme of desire for objectivity, corresponding subthemes, and exemplar quotes.
Table 6. Major theme of professional roles, corresponding subthemes, and exemplar quotes.

3.1. Minor Theme: Knowledge about MD

Participants estimated that the prevalence of MD was low (<5%), based on the patients seen in practice, but believed it to be higher after taking children into consideration. There was an assumption that children and the elderly experienced MD to a greater extent than adults. Most participants listed altered pharmacokinetic profiles, increased risk of adverse effects, and lower efficacy as potential implications of DFM; few discussed incomplete dosing.
In addition, participants believed that patients crush medications as they are unaware of the potential implications. Some believed MD patients would otherwise be non-adherent, and listed patients’ perceived benefits of medications as determinants of adherence.

3.2. Minor Theme: Management of MD

3.2.1. Sub-Theme: Management Strategies

Most participants expressed confidence in medication-related management of MD. Participants’ main strategies were split between DFM and switching to alternative formulations, which were usually liquids. Some mentioned other management strategies, such as switching to alternative drugs, speech language therapists (SLTs) referrals, reassurances, and patient education, but expressed unfamiliarity with training patients to swallow SODFs.
Participants partially agreed with the MD management plan (Figure 1). Most opined that the evaluation of swallowing difficulties fell outside their scope of practice as pharmacists and were not in favor of compounding. They also proposed the re-sequencing of steps on the MD management plan (Figure 1), but the suggestions were varied and sometimes contradictory.

3.2.2. Sub-Theme: Tools in Management

When seeking information on MD management, most participants preferred consulting references over colleagues. Product inserts and in-house guidelines were frequently mentioned by participants to determine DFM suitability. Product inserts provide information and recommendations from manufacturers. They are objective in that when modification (e.g., crushing or chewing) is not recommended, the information is specified. Though most participants felt confident providing medication-related information, they pointed out that doctors or SLTs were needed to provide expertise on the assessment of patients; therefore, no single profession suited the role of information provider.

3.2.3. Sub-Theme: Challenges in Management

Participants cited lack of expertise in evaluating swallowing difficulties, as well as time constraints for screening and managing MD as challenges encountered when managing patients with MD. In addition, they were further encumbered when pertinent information such as DFM suitability was missing from references.
When attempting to switch formulations, unavailability was the most frequently raised challenge. Few participants discussed the unpalatability, cost, and potentially different pharmacokinetic profiles of alternative formulations. One participant recounted experiencing prescriber resistance to switching formulations.

3.3. Major Theme: Expectations of Patient Proactivity

3.3.1. Sub-Theme: Awareness of Greater Capacity

There was group consensus that MD was most likely identified during medication administration. More participants agreed that earlier identification of MD could occur during prescribing (n = 6) than dispensing (n = 4). Some believed that current practices were “reactive”, acknowledging more could be done in identifying MD patients.

3.3.2. Sub-Theme: Reactive Approach of HCPs

Most participants did not screen for MD, but relied on patients and caregivers to notify them. Some participants performed conditional screening for CD—at transitions of care, when dispensing medications for children, or formulations that must be swallowed whole. Participants expressed belief that patients experiencing MD would proactively seek out HCPs, self-educate, or consult friends and family.

3.4. Major Theme: Desire for Objectivity

3.4.1. Sub-Theme: Greater Emphasis on Objective Information

Participants preferred to seek objective information when identifying and managing MD patients. Responses to the scenario-based questions centered on seeking objective information, such as the medications involved, potential spoilage, or factual recounts of events, even when the scenario involved subjective factors (aversion). Objective factors of MD, such as product size and medical history, were discussed more frequently than subjective factors, such as psychological issues and misconceptions.
In the scenario-based question, when informed of the patient’s history of stroke, most participants altered their approach by adding referrals to SLTs.

3.4.2. Sub-Theme: Lower Perceived Importance of Subjective Issues

Most responses reflected a lower perceived importance of MD by participants or their institutions, relative to CD or other tasks. Though infrequent, most participants expressed skepticism when discussing subjective factors or MD. Notably, one participant consistently referred to MD as “subjective difficulty”, despite referring to CD as “clinical dysphagia”.

3.5. Major Theme: Professional Roles

3.5.1. Sub-Theme: Distinct but Complementary Roles

Participants limited their responses about MD management and information provision to medication-related issues. Most adopted a team-centric approach in managing MD by leveraging other professions’ expertise, sharing responsibility, or utilizing team-based decision making. This was clearly expressed by the switch from first person singular pronouns to plural pronouns “we” when discussing HCPs’ shared responsibility for patients.
Some participants would direct patients to ask other HCPs, such as doctors, whom they felt could manage MD better. The same participants highlighted interprofessional communication difficulties, which one participant attributed to their practice setting (retail pharmacy).
Few were informed of patients experiencing MD by colleagues. Most would only communicate this information to colleagues within their profession; one participant would not at all, though this was attributed to being downstream in the information flow.

3.5.2. Sub-Theme: Concerns about Liability

Participants implied that checking for DFM suitability was their responsibility, as evidenced by the frequent mention of consulting references to determine DFM suitability. However, they believed that warning patients against DFM was sufficient to safeguard themselves from liability in case of patient harm resulting from DFM.
Some participants suggested patient education, obtaining prescriber’s approval for DFM, using available alternatives, and checking patient understanding as part of due diligence. One participant expressed willingness to raise minimum standards to include patient education if allotted more time. Another disagreed and reasoned that screening for MD exceeded the minimum standards required.
Most participants agreed that DFM done of the patient’s volition would absolve HCPs from liability in case of patient harm. Some mentioned DFM done against HCPs’ verbal or written advice as a disqualifier.

4. Discussion

Responses collected from the AOFG provided insights into pharmacists’ knowledge about MD, current practices in caring for MD patients, and attitudes underlying their practice. Attitudes towards professional roles established the boundaries within which participants managed MD. Expectations of patient proactivity, desire for objectivity, and assumptions about MD’s prevalence account for the limited screening for MD and underutilization of certain management strategies such as patient education and reassurance. Participants seemingly preferred DFM despite liability concerns, addressed by checking references for DFM suitability.

4.1. Knowledge

Knowledge about MD may be improved. Participants’ estimated prevalence (<5%) is much lower than the 10–40% suggested by the existing literature [4,5], and were influenced by their assumptions about affected demographics. Limited screening could have contributed to participants’ low perceived prevalence of MD, as postulated in other studies [56]. A study found that nearly half of its participants thought that patients aged 6–11 years were capable of swallowing SODFs with little to no difficulty [57], whereas other studies found decreasing trends of MD with age [1,4]. Additionally, the presence of MD in adults has been reported in various studies [1,12,13]. Future studies beyond the community setting are needed to improve the understanding of MD’s prevalence, and its presence across all age groups should be recognized and addressed.
Participants recognized DFM and non-adherence as common coping strategies adopted by patients with MD [1,4]. They were knowledgeable about various implications associated with DFM and did not limit discussion to modified-release preparations. This suggests participants avoided the pitfall of assuming DFM suitability in all immediate-release SODFs, unlike HCPs in other studies [4,20,56]. However, incomplete dosing appeared overlooked in discussions and is a potential pitfall, especially for medications with narrow therapeutic windows [4,16].

4.2. Management of MD

The management of MD by participants was bound within the clearly defined scope of practice as pharmacists. Suggested changes to the MD management plan were inconsistent or contradictory, highlighting the need for a standardized MD management plan. Participants consistently suggested delegating the evaluation of swallowing difficulties to doctors or SLTs, emphasizing their respective distinct but complementary roles. Compounding was not preferred, possibly due to greater resources required. As a result, it is seldom performed in local retail pharmacies, unlike overseas community pharmacies where it is more commonly offered [5]. In addition, medication review and removal of unnecessary medications not suitable for DFM were overlooked by participants as MD management strategies, despite them being within pharmacists’ scope of practice [4].
Participants’ suggestion that the identification of MD occurring earlier, during the prescribing phase, reflects assumptions that prescribers would have considered MD, so no further review by pharmacists is required.
DFM is participants’ preferred strategy in managing MD, possibly due to the challenges associated with switching formulations, the other strategy raised, including cost and unavailability [4,5,19]. However, being the last-resort strategy, DFM is not ideal [18]. Nonetheless, though switching formulations is recommended, HCPs should be mindful to check for dose equivalence or make necessary dose adjustments [5,18] for patient safety.
Other less commonly discussed strategies are worth further exploration. Given that psychological barriers are a commonly cited cause of MD [1,5,14,58], provision of reassurance seems underutilized. Participants’ desire for objectivity may have led to subjective factors being overlooked and unaddressed. However, severe cases dubbed “psychogenic dysphagia” require psychological intervention [5,19,59]. Training patients to swallow SODFs has also been suggested in other studies [1,4]. Despite evidence of efficacy in children and adolescents only [1,4,5], participants did not limit this strategy to children, as assumed in other studies [14]. Further studies proving efficacy in adults are required. Formulation-specific postural adjustments were discussed. Chin-tuck for medications that float on water [23] was effective in easing SODF administration in healthy persons and MD patients, but not necessarily in CD patients [1,5,60] due to aspiration risk; recommendations should be withheld until after evaluation [5].
In contrast, certain strategies could be avoided. Advising patients to take SODFs with sufficient water is probably ineffective despite being a commonly adopted coping strategy by MD patients [13,23], as insufficient water intake has been ruled out as a cause of MD [1]. Backwards-head-tilt for tablets is not recommended despite being intuitive and commonly practiced by MD patients [1,13,14,23]. It paradoxically increases swallowing difficulty [13,23,24] and aspiration risk [5]. Pharmacists should avoid recommending it, and actively warn against it.
Lack of time was a barrier to screening, management, and participants’ desire to do more for patients with MD. Manpower shortages may explain participants’ lack of time [61,62]. Alternatively, participants prioritized other tasks above MD management, having perceived it as less important given its subjective nature. Participants’ desire for objectivity was also reflected in their preference for consulting references over colleagues, regardless of practice settings, when in doubt about DFM suitability.

4.3. Expectations of Patient Proactivity

Expectations of patient proactivity to notify pharmacists of MD were reflected by limited screening for MD despite its capacity for earlier identification and awareness of patients’ potential coping strategies. Participants’ limited screening for MD, similar to findings from existing studies [1,13,56], may also be influenced by their assumptions about affected demographics. Conditional screening seems limited in scope and unlikely to spot previously unidentified MD patients. Pharmacists should be made aware that MD occurs across different age groups [1,12] and their breadth of screening should be improved.
On the other hand, studies have reported that, out of embarrassment or belief that HCPs would not be able to help [1,4], most patients do not notify HCPs if they experience MD; instead, advice from potentially less well-informed friends and family [4] would be sought. Patient education may correct misconceptions and improve patients’ perception of pharmacists and other HCPs as an approachable and trusted source of help and health information. Additionally, studies recommended HCPs proactively screen for MD [1,18,23]. The recently developed PILL-5 provides a solution for MD screening [9]. Comprising only five questions on patients’ experience with taking SODFs, as well as how they take them, it is simple to use, validated, and provides score-based recommendations, including when referral to specialists is necessary [9]. Being patient-administered, it circumvents time constraints and removes the need for evaluation skills, allowing HCPs of various professions to screen for MD rapidly. Alternatively, simply asking if patients have difficulty swallowing medications was also recommended [4,13,23].

4.4. Desire for Objectivity

CD was frequently discussed alongside objective factors, such as predisposing medical history, which may account for participants’ greater perceived importance of CD than MD. By assigning greater weight to objective factors, other common causes of MD such as anxiety and aversion to taking medications [1,5] could be overlooked, even if mentioned in patient interactions, leading to missed opportunities in identifying MD patients.
Expression of skepticism when discussing subjective factors and MD suggests a lower perceived importance of both. When answering the scenario-based question, participants’ revision of management strategies after objective factors were introduced suggests they started to take MD more seriously, substantiating the aforementioned theory. Participants’ perceived importance of MD may also be influenced by their respective places of practice [4]—infrequent communication about MD may lead to impressions that MD is a non-issue. Notably, few participants had learned of patients experiencing MD from colleagues, suggesting their colleagues did not regard MD important enough to screen for, or a lack of formal communication channels.
Ultimately, MD affects the medication use experience, which is invariably subjective, but may affect adherence and health outcomes [63].

4.5. Professional Roles

Despite participants’ views that MD management fell within the scope of practice of multiple professions, their clearly defined boundaries did not pose a barrier to MD management. Instead, participants recognized the complementary contributions required of each profession.
However, though the team-centric approach was desired, it was not applied in practice with regard to communication about MD patients, as most participants limited their communication to colleagues within the profession. Notably, some participants mentioned interprofessional communication difficulties, which may explain why they would direct patients to ask other HCPs instead of consulting on patients’ behalf. However, this practice places expectations of proactivity on patients. Encouraging interprofessional communication may improve the continuity of care [4,11]. For instance, notifying prescribers of patients’ MD may prompt a reconsideration of potentially inappropriate prescriptions and an evaluation of swallowing difficulties at subsequent appointments. More effort could be directed towards community settings, where lack of proximity was a postulated barrier to multidisciplinary discussion [56].
Prescribers’ resistance to switching formulations, although uncommon, suggests “power imbalance” in decision-making and that certain HCPs are not truly comfortable with a team-centric approach [64].
Participants opined that the provision of administration instructions, whether verbal or written, constituted minimum standards of due diligence, and believed that DFM of patients’ own volition would absolve HCPs from liability in case of harm. However, they did not consider the possibility of patients misunderstanding or overlooking written instructions. Emphasizing verbal warnings against DFM and checking patients’ understanding could minimize inappropriate DFM by patients and potential harm, but requires time and greater HCP proactivity.
Participants rarely discussed obtaining prescriber approval prior to recommending DFM, highlighting it as a potential pitfall as reported by previous studies [19,20]. Notably, they frequently discussed checking for DFM suitability alongside MD. They desired objectivity to provide assurance about liability concerns regarding DFM suitability, preferring products inserts as information sources, since they provide objective information about DFM suitability directly from the manufacturer.

4.6. Implications on Clinical Practice

This pilot AOFG provided insight into pharmacists’ KAP in caring for patients with MD. There are a few implications drawn from the findings. Firstly, SODF modification was among pharmacists’ preferred MD management strategies, and objectivity was desired. This points to the necessity to make references and information resources on the suitability of SODF modification available to their everyday practice. For pharmacists working in resource-constrained institutions, the INGEST algorithm [65] can be used as an alternative tool to guide them in making such evaluations. Being an implicit tool, it prompts users to consider attributes of SODFs and patients’ need for tube-feeding before determining their suitability for DFM [65]. Secondly, there appeared to be a lack of formal communication channel for conveying information on patients’ swallowing ability and/or needs for DFM. Establishing a standard communication channel will facilitate the timely transfer of such information within and between healthcare institutions.

4.7. Metholodogical Considerations

The use of the AOFG format in this study presented several benefits. It allowed participants to share their lack of knowledge or confidence, which might not have happened in face-to-face formats. Flexibility of time likely contributed to high completion rates, despite responses being optional. On the other hand, participants’ contributions were variable—those with fewer logins tended to post shorter, matter-of-fact responses. Additionally, most responses were posted on weekends. Future work should include more open-ended questions and ensure buffer-time falls on a weekend.
Some limitations of the AOFG format were identified in this study. Firstly, due to the asynchronous nature of the study, immediate feedback from other participants was not required. This made it challenging to ensure that the discussion was on track and that each participant considered others’ views when providing their opinions. In future AOFGs, more regular and targeted reminders, as well as a tighter deadline to respond (e.g., of 3 days instead of 2 weeks) could be introduced. Secondly, as there was no face-to-face or verbal interaction, the AOFG format lacked nonverbal cues and tone of voice, which can be very important in interpreting a message. This was minimized in part by regular follow-up questions posted by the moderator for clarification. Transcripts were also read repeatedly for familiarization and to capture the important points raised.
The interview guide was purposefully kept generic to avoid excluding or favoring any particular profession. In addition, to limit reflexivity and the introduction of personal biases from research team members, the discussion guide was structured with clearly defined moderator interactions. Independent coding, the identification of themes, and discussion to obtain consensus ensured reliability of findings [66]. The saturation of ideas was not achieved in this pilot study, but would likely be achieved with one AOFG for each healthcare profession [67]. Future plans include the recruitment of seven to nine members from each of the other professions (doctors, nurses, and SLTs) and the continued use of the AOFG format to elicit information on their KAP on caring for patients with MD. The insights gathered will help expand the evidence base on the management of MD and contribute to the ongoing research on improving care for patients with this condition.

5. Conclusions

This pilot AOFG provided insight into pharmacists’ KAP in caring for patients with MD. Knowledge about MD could be improved, especially regarding prevalence-related assumptions. Preferred MD management strategies were DFM and switching formulations, each with associated challenges. Expectations of patient proactivity were reflected by limited screening for MD, despite recognizing opportunities for the earlier identification of MD. Pharmacists’ desire for objectivity possibly accounted for their apparent lower perceived importance, resulting in overlooking the subjective factors of MD and corresponding management strategies.
Clear boundaries between professional roles did not appear to pose barriers to MD management, which was deemed a multidisciplinary task. Providing administration instructions warning against DFM was defined as the minimum standard to safeguard against potential liability in case of patient harm. However, the findings are limited since the AOFG was conducted with pharmacists and may not be generalizable beyond this group.
The insight into pharmacists’ KAP and methodological considerations may be incorporated into the full-scale study involving participants across various healthcare professions. Future work may also include studies on MD’s prevalence across various care settings and the development of MD management plans.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/ijerph20042858/s1, Table S1: Table of Comparison of Platforms Evaluated. Initial cut-off criteria included Platform-provided Hosting and Browser-based. Key criteria for further evaluation included Asynchronous Discussion, Participant Anonymity, Controlled User Access (by password-controlled or invite-only access), Deletion of Data on Request, and Data Collected Not Sold.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.Y.C. and P.L.T.; methodology, T.J.L. and P.L.T.; software, T.J.L.; validation, T.J.L. and P.L.T.; formal analysis, T.J.L. and P.L.T.; investigation, T.J.L. and P.L.T.; resources, S.Y.C.; data curation, T.J.L.; writing—original draft preparation, T.J.L.; writing—review and editing, T.J.L., P.L.T. and S.Y.C.; visualization, S.Y.C. and P.L.T.; supervision, S.Y.C.; project administration, P.L.T.; funding acquisition, S.Y.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by “Singapore Ministry of Education Academic Research Fund” Tier 1, grant number R-148-000-311-114.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Committee) of NUS Pharmacy Ethics Committee (protocol code PHA-DERC-14 on 15 February 2021).

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to their containing information that could compromise the privacy of research participants.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the participants for taking part in the AOFG and for providing invaluable insights.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Schiele, J.T.; Quinzler, R.; Klimm, H.D.; Pruszydlo, M.G.; Haefeli, W.E. Difficulties swallowing solid oral dosage forms in a general practice population: Prevalence, causes, and relationship to dosage forms. Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 2013, 69, 937–948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Proportion of Older Adults with Multiple Chronic Diseases Surges. Available online: https://www.sgh.com.sg/news/tomorrows-medicine/proportion-of-older-adults-with-multiple-chronic-diseases-surges (accessed on 26 November 2022).
  3. Health Promotion Board Singapore. Tips to Prevent and Manage Chronic Diseases in the Workplace. Available online: https://www.hpb.gov.sg/article/tips-to-prevent-and-manage-chronic-diseases-in-the-workplace (accessed on 11 March 2022).
  4. Lau, E.T.; Steadman, K.J.; Cichero, J.A.; Nissen, L.M. Dosage form modification and oral drug delivery in older people. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2018, 135, 75–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Forough, A.S.; Lau, E.T.; Steadman, K.J.; Cichero, J.A.; Kyle, G.J.; Serrano Santos, J.M.; Nissen, L.M. A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down? A review of strategies for making pills easier to swallow. Patient Prefer. Adherence 2018, 12, 1337–1346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Farpour, S.; Farpour, H.R.; Smithard, D.; Kardeh, B.; Ghazaei, F.; Zafarghasempour, M. Dysphagia management in Iran: Knowledge, attitude and practice of healthcare providers. Dysphagia 2019, 34, 105–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine. Deglutition Disorders—MeSH. Available online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/68003680 (accessed on 11 March 2022).
  8. Stoschus, B.; Allescher, H.D. Drug-induced dysphagia. Dysphagia 1993, 8, 154–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Nativ-Zeltzer, N.; Bayoumi, A.; Mandin, V.P.; Kaufman, M.; Seeni, I.; Kuhn, M.A.; Belafsky, P.C. Validation of the PILL-5: A 5-item patient reported outcome measure for pill dysphagia. Front. Surg. 2019, 6, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Stegemann, S.; Gosch, M.; Breitkreutz, J. Swallowing dysfunction and dysphagia is an unrecognized challenge for oral drug therapy. Int. J. Pharm. 2012, 430, 197–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Kelly, J.; D’Cruz, G.; Wright, D. Patients with dysphagia: Experiences of taking medication. J. Adv. Nurs. 2010, 66, 82–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Lau, E.T.; Steadman, K.J.; Mak, M.; Cichero, J.A.; Nissen, L.M. Prevalence of swallowing difficulties and medication modification in customers of community pharmacists. J. Res. Pharm. Pract. 2015, 45, 18–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Tahaineh, L.; Wazaify, M. Difficulties in swallowing oral medications in Jordan. Int. J. Clin. Pharm. 2017, 39, 373–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Llorca, P.M. Discussion of prevalence and management of discomfort when swallowing pills: Orodispersible tablets expand treatment options in patients with depression. Ther. Deliv. 2011, 2, 611–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Balzer, K.M. Drug-induced dysphagia. Int. J. MS Care 2000, 2, 40–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Logrippo, S.; Ricci, G.; Sestili, M.; Cespi, M.; Ferrara, L.; Palmieri, G.F.; Ganzetti, R.; Bonacucina, G.; Blasi, P. Oral drug therapy in elderly with dysphagia: Between a rock and a hard place! Clin. Interv. Aging 2017, 12, 241–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Kelly, J.; D’Cruz, G.; Wright, D. A qualitative study of the problems surrounding medicine administration to patients with dysphagia. Dysphagia 2009, 24, 49–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Wright, D.; Chapman, N.; Foundling-Miah, M.; Greenwall, R.; Griffith, R.; Guyon, A.; Merriman, H. Guideline on the Medication Management of Adults with Swallowing Difficulties. Available online: https://www.rosemontpharma.com/sites/default/files/20150911_adult_dysphagia_full_guideline_clean_approved_sept_15.pdf (accessed on 11 March 2022).
  19. Mc Gillicuddy, A.; Crean, A.M.; Sahm, L.J. Older adults with difficulty swallowing oral medicines: A systematic review of the literature. Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 2016, 72, 141–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Stubbs, J.; Haw, C.; Dickens, G. Dose form modification—A common but potentially hazardous practice. A literature review and study of medication administration to older psychiatric inpatients. Int. Psychogeriatr. 2008, 20, 616–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Griffith, R.; Tengnah, C. A guideline for managing medication related dysphagia. Br. J. Community Nurs. 2007, 12, 426–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Mercovich, N.; Kyle, G.J.; Naunton, M. Safe to crush? A pilot study into solid dosage form modification in aged care. Australas J. Ageing 2014, 33, 180–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Marquis, J.; Schneider, M.P.; Payot, V.; Cordonier, A.C.; Bugnon, O.; Hersberger, K.E.; Arnet, I. Swallowing difficulties with oral drugs among polypharmacy patients attending community pharmacies. Int. J. Clin. Pharm. 2013, 35, 1130–1136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Strachan, I.; Greener, M. Medication-related swallowing difficulties may be more common than we realise. Pharm. Pract. 2005, 15, 411–414. [Google Scholar]
  25. Andrade, C.; Menon, V.; Ameen, S.; Kumar Praharaj, S. Designing and conducting knowledge, attitude, and practice surveys in psychiatry: Practical guidance. Indian J. Psychol. Med. 2020, 42, 478–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Williams, S.; Clausen, M.G.; Robertson, A. Methodological reflections on the use of asynchronous online focus groups in health. Int. J. Qual. Methods 2012, 11, 368–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Zwaanswijk, M.; van Dulmen, S. Advantages of asynchronous online focus groups and face-to-face focus groups as perceived by child, adolescent and adult participants: A survey study. BMC Res. Notes 2014, 7, 756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Reisner, S.L.; Randazzo, R.K.; White Hughto, J.M.; Peitzmeier, S.; DuBois, L.Z.; Pardee, D.J.; Marrow, E.; McLean, S.; Potter, J. Sensitive health topics with underserved patient populations: Methodological considerations for online focus group discussions. Qual. Health Res. 2018, 28, 1658–1673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ripat, J.; Colatruglio, A. Exploring winter community participation among wheelchair users: An online focus group. Occup. Ther. Health Care 2016, 30, 95–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Boateng, B.; Nelson, M.K.; Huett, A.; Meaux, J.B.; Pye, S.; Schmid, B.; Berg, A.; LaPorte, K.; Riley, L.; Green, A. Online focus groups with parents and adolescents with heart transplants: Challenges and opportunities. Pediatr. Nurs. 2016, 42, 120–123. [Google Scholar]
  31. Rolls, K.; Hansen, M.; Jackson, D.; Elliott, D. Why We Belong—Exploring membership of healthcare professionals in an intensive care virtual community Via Online Focus Groups: Rationale and Protocol. JMIR Res. Protoc. 2016, 5, e99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Henderson, E.M.; Eccleston, C. An online adolescent message board discussion about the internet: Use for pain. J. Child Health Care 2015, 19, 412–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Lagan, B.M.; Sinclair, M.; Kernohan, W.G. What is the impact of the Internet on decision-making in pregnancy? A global study. Birth 2011, 38, 336–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Yu, J.; Taverner, N.; Madden, K. Young people’s views on sharing health-related stories on the Internet. Health Soc. Care Community 2011, 19, 326–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Stefansdottir, V.; Johannsson, O.T.; Skirton, H.; Jonsson, J.J. Counsellee’s experience of cancer genetic counselling with pedigrees that automatically incorporate genealogical and cancer database information. J. Community Genet. 2016, 7, 229–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. FocusGroupIt. Focus Groups Made Easy. Available online: https://www.focusgroupit.com/ (accessed on 11 March 2022).
  37. NowComment. Turning Texts, Images & Videos into Conversations. Available online: https://nowcomment.com/ (accessed on 11 March 2022).
  38. Discourse. Civilized Discussion for your _____. Available online: https://www.discourse.org/ (accessed on 11 March 2022).
  39. NING. All You Need for a Perfect Website. Available online: https://www.ning.com/features/ (accessed on 11 March 2022).
  40. Microsoft Teams. Make Amazing Things Happen Together at Home, Work, and School. Available online: https://www.microsoft.com/en/microsoft-teams/group-chat-software (accessed on 11 March 2022).
  41. Collabito. Bulletin Board Focus Groups. Available online: https://www.collabito.com/online-bulletin-board-focus-group/ (accessed on 11 March 2022).
  42. Kialo. Kialo Edu—The tool to Teach Critical Thinking and Rational Debate. Available online: https://www.kialo-edu.com/ (accessed on 11 March 2022).
  43. YoTeach by PALMS. The New Alternative to Todaysmeet. Available online: https://yoteachapp.com/ (accessed on 11 March 2022).
  44. Backchannel Chat. Backchannel Chat Will Change the Way You Think about Safe Online Chat. Available online: http://backchannelchat.com/Benefits (accessed on 11 March 2022).
  45. L-Soft International, I. LISTSERV Email List Management Software. Available online: http://www.lsoft.com/products/listserv.asp (accessed on 11 March 2022).
  46. MH Sub I Ldv. Feature Comparison: VB5 vs. VBCloud. Available online: https://www.vbulletin.com/en/vbcloud-features (accessed on 11 March 2022).
  47. itracks. Board–itracks. Available online: https://www.itracks.com/products-services/board/ (accessed on 11 March 2022).
  48. Community I. Invision Community Features—Powerful Community Apps to Delight Users–Invision Community. Available online: https://invisioncommunity.com/features/content/ (accessed on 11 March 2022).
  49. FluxBB. Feature List—FluxBB. Available online: https://fluxbb.org/about/features.html (accessed on 11 March 2022).
  50. phpBB Forum Software. The #1 Free, Open Source Bulletine Board Software. Available online: https://www.phpbb.com/ (accessed on 11 March 2022).
  51. Johansson, E. How Can Remote Communication Be Made More Accessible to People with Communication Disabilities? An Online Focus Group Study with Support Persons to People with Communication Disabilities in Need of Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC). Master’s Thesis, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  52. McLafferty, I. Focus group interviews as a data collecting strategy. J. Adv. Nurs. 2004, 48, 187–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Maguire, M.; Delahunt, B. Doing a thematic analysis: A practical, step-by-step guide for learning and teaching scholars. All Irel. J. High. Educ. 2017, 9, 3351–33514. [Google Scholar]
  54. Braun, V.; Clarke, V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 2006, 3, 77–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Gibbs, G.R. Thematic coding and categorizing. In Analyzing Qualitative Data; SAGE Publications Ltd.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2007; pp. 38–55. [Google Scholar]
  56. Nguyen, T.M.U.; Lau, E.; Steadman, K.; Cichero, J.; Dingle, K.; Nissen, L. Pharmacist, general practitioner, and nurse perceptions, experiences, and knowledge of medication dosage form modification. Integr. Pharm. Res. Pract. 2014, 2014, 3. [Google Scholar]
  57. Meltzer, E.O.; Welch, M.J.; Ostrom, N.K. Pill swallowing ability and training in children 6 to 11 years of age. Clin. Pediatr. 2006, 45, 725–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Dorman, R.M.; Sutton, S.H.; Yee, L.M. Understanding HIV-related pill aversion as a distinct barrier to medication adherence. Behav. Med. 2019, 45, 294–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Shapiro, J.; Franko, D.L.; Gagne, A. Phagophobia: A form of psychogenic dysphagia. A new entity. Ann. Otol. Rhinol. Laryngol. 1997, 106, 286–290. [Google Scholar]
  60. Macleod, A.D.; Vella-Brincat, J.; Frampton, C. Swallowing capsules. Palliat. Med. 2003, 17, 559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Budget Debate: More Healthcare Workers Needed in Coming Years. Available online: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/budget-debate-more-healthcare-workers-needed-in-coming-years (accessed on 26 November 2022).
  62. World Health Organization. Global Health Workforce Shortage to Reach 12.9 Million in Coming Decades. 2013. Available online: https://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2013/health-workforce-shortage/en/ (accessed on 28 March 2021).
  63. Picton, C.; Wright, H. Medicines Optimisation: Helping Patients to Make the Most of Medicines. Available online: https://www.nhs.uk/about-the-nhs-website/professionals/healthandcareprofessionals/your-pages/documents/rps-medicines-optimisation.pdf (accessed on 28 March 2021).
  64. Barnes, L.; Cheek, J.; Nation, R.L.; Gilbert, A.; Paradiso, L.; Ballantyne, A. Making sure the residents get their tablets: Medication administration in care homes for older people. J. Adv. Nurs. 2006, 56, 190–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Tan, P.L.; Chung, W.L.; Sklar, G.E.; Yap, K.Z.; Chan, S.Y. Development and validation of the INappropriate solid oral dosaGE form modification aSsessmenT (INGEST) Algorithm using data of patients with medication dysphagia from a neurology ward and nursing home in Singapore. BMJ Open 2022, 12, e061774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Breen, R.L. A practical guide to focus-group research. J. Geogr. High Educ. 2006, 30, 463–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Onwuegbuzie, A.J.; Dickinson, W.B.; Leech, N.L.; Zoran, A.G. A qualitative framework for collecting and analyzing data in focus group research. Int. J. Qual. Methods 2009, 8, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.
From Agricultural Green Production to Farmers’ Happiness: A Case Study of Kiwi Growers in China
Previous
Relationships between Physical Activity Frequency and Self-Perceived Health, Self-Reported Depression, and Depressive Symptoms in Spanish Older Adults with Diabetes: A Cross-Sectional Study
Next