Introduction
The growing complexity of medical conditions and the fact that different patients react differently to medicines have clarified that healthcare needs to be more specialized(Kannan et al., 2023). This literature study looks into the topic of personalized medication management plans to answer the critical question of whether or not they improve patient outcomes.
Problem Statement
In modern healthcare settings, the “one-size-fits-all” concept of managing medications doesn’t always work well for meeting the needs and responding differently to each patient. This lack of customization could lead to less-than-ideal treatment results and problems sticking with it, especially for long-term conditions(Williams et al., 2022). Because of this, this study is mostly about looking into personalized medication management plans as a possible way to improve the health outcomes of specific patients.
Significance of the Study
The importance of this study lies in its ability to wholly change how medications are managed now. Combining the ever-growing body of medical knowledge with technological progress has made it possible to develop drug plans specifically designed for each patient(Haile et al., 2022). Not only do healthcare providers need to know how personalized medication management plans work, but so do policymakers who want to make the best use of resources and make healthcare services more efficient overall.
Definitions and Background
Before getting into the specifics of personalized medication management, it’s essential to ensure everyone understands some basic terms and gives a quick history of how this method has changed. In this case, personalized medication management means carefully changing a patient’s medicine schedule to fit their specific needs, considering things like genetics, lifestyle, and other health problems they may have(Haile et al., 2022). Improvements in pharmacogenomics, data analytics, and a greater focus on patient-centered care have all affected how this idea has changed over time.
The Main Statement
The main goal of this review is to give current literature and evidence about personalized medication management plans a critical look. The review’s primary goal is to show how well they work compared to standard methods, especially when improving patient outcomes, adherence, and quality of life in general. The main question that will guide this evaluation is: “How does using a personalized medication management plan versus a standard medication regimen affect HbA1c levels, medication adherence, and quality of life in adults with Type 2 diabetes over the course of a year?” This research question will be used as a guide to find applicable literature and put it all together during the review.
Methods
The literature study was done in a way that fitted the PICOT question. It looked at how personalized and standard medication management affected the control of high blood pressure in adults and ensured they took their medications as prescribed. A planned search method was used to gather all the evidence from well-known sources such as PubMed, Scopus, and CINAHL. These databases were picked because they have many health and medicine books (Williams et al., 2022). It was important that the search terms, including “personalized medication management,” “hypertension,” and other linked words, had all the relevant evidence.
To help choose which articles to include, strict rules were made about what to have and what to leave out. The main things considered were original study articles that looked into specific interventions and outcomes. On the other hand, the exclusion criteria eliminated studies that needed to be more about what the review was about. Understanding the review process after the search yielded a certain number and type of articles was straightforward. A big part of the process was using different kinds of proof (Williams et al., 2022). It was essential to have strong evidence, so the review mostly used good sources like randomized controlled studies and systematic reviews.
Results
A study by Lee et al. (2022) called “Efficacy of Personalised Diabetes Self-care Using an Electronic Medical Record–Integrated Mobile App in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: 6-Month Randomised Controlled Trial” looks at personalized diabetes self-care mobile health intervention that lasts for 26 weeks. Initially, it helps to keep blood sugar in check, especially when doctors give and receive feedback. But, over time, the effect fades. Subgroup analyses show that different patients get different effects, which shows how hard it is to make personalized interventions work. In some instances, the instruments might have failed, which is a limiting factor of this study.
An RCT study in Bangladesh by Yasmin et al. (2020) to see how a health intervention using cell phones affected the health of people with Type 2 diabetes and how well they stuck to their treatment plans. From January to December 2014, the study used a call center open 24 hours a day, seven days a week. That group handled their blood sugar levels better than the control group. Also, they were much more likely to eat right, work out, and quit smoking. These results back up the idea that mobile health interventions can help people with diabetes better handle their condition in places that don’t have many tools. The limitation of this study is that patients were unlikely to reflect all DM 2 patients nationwide.
Sendekie et al. (2022) looked at people with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) who also had other health issues. The study found destructive patterns in how well these people took their medicines and how that affected their ability to keep their blood sugar in check. Out of the 403 people looked at, 76.9% did not take their meds as prescribed. Payment for medicines, monthly income, checking blood sugar levels on one’s own, the number of medications taken, and general health conditions all affected attendance. The study stresses how important it is to quickly start targeted management interventions to help T2DM patients with other health problems take their medications as directed and finally get better control of their blood sugar. Some patients being dishonest is a limitation of this study.
Mendelian randomization analysis was used in a population-based prospective cohort study by Sun et al. (2019) to look into the two-way direct link between T2D and high blood pressure. Genetically instrumented T2D was linked to a higher chance of high blood pressure in 318,664 people, showing a cause-and-effect relationship. Genetically determined hypertension, on the other hand, did not lead to a reciprocal link with T2D. The study shows how important it is to keep blood sugar levels in check and check blood pressure regularly, especially systolic blood pressure, in people with T2D to avoid the disease and manage complications. One of the study’s limitations is the insufficient data on insulin resistance.
A quasi-experimental–postpost design study done byHirsch et al. (2021) looks at how diabetes “tune-up” clinic run by a pharmacist and an endocrinologist affected 83 type 2 diabetes patients’ ability to take their medications as prescribed, their happiness, and their ability to control their blood sugar levels over six months. Medication adherence scores, HbA1c levels, and patient happiness improved with the pharmacist-led intervention. A 26% rise in patients who took their medications as prescribed was seen after a personalized treatment plan that included complete medication management and teaching. The study shows that pharmacist interventions can help improve glycemic control and patient happiness. The lack of a control group is a limitation of this study.
Discussion
The combined ideas from the literature study give us a more complex picture of how personalized interventions can help people with diabetes. Studies by Lee et al. (2022) and Yasmin et al. (2020) show that mobile health treatments can be helpful. They show short-term success in controlling blood sugar levels and better adherence through phone-based reminders. The study done in Northwest Ethiopia adds to this review by showing how important it is for people with multiple health problems to take their medications as prescribed to control their blood sugar levels(Sendekie et al., 2022).
The studies look at the effects of different interventions on diabetes control and add helpful information to the PICOT question.The short-term success of mobile health treatments like apps and reminders regulating blood sugar supported the PICOT mission to examine technology-based solutions. Also, pharmacists’ programs helped with taking medications as prescribed and maintaining blood sugar levels, which shows how important they are to complete diabetes care. However, the studies showed how hard it is to keep things working well over time, which suggests that ongoing measures are needed. The results all answer the PICOT question by showing how important it is for healthcare providers to be involved, for treatments to be tailored, and for technology to be used together to improve diabetes outcomes.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this literature review looks at personalized methods for managing diabetes. It focuses on the usefulness of mobile interventions, the importance of adherence in patients with multiple conditions, and the two-way connection between type 2 diabetes and high blood pressure. The joint clinic run by a pharmacist looks like a good example. Some of the most essential suggestions are to do more studies on scalability, long-term effects, and improving adherence assessment problems to provide more personalized care in diabetes management.
References
Haile, T. G., Mariye, T., Tadesse, D. B., Gebremeskel, G. G., Asefa, G. G., & Getachew, T. (2022). Prevalence of hypertension among type 2 diabetes mellitus patients in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. International Health, 9(8). https://doi.org/10.1093/inthealth/ihac060
Hirsch, J. D., Kong, N., Nguyen, K. T., Cadiz, C. L., Zhou, C., Bajorek, S. A., Bounthavong, M., & Morello, C. M. (2021). Improved Patient-Reported Medication Adherence, Patient Satisfaction, and Glycemic Control in a Collaborative Care Pharmacist-Led Diabetes “Tune-Up” Clinic. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(17), 9242. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18179242
Kannan, S., Chellappan, D. K., Kow, C. S., Ramachandram, D. S., Pandey, M., Mayuren, J., Dua, K., & Candasamy, M. (2023). Transform diabetes care with precision medicine. Health Science Reports, 6(11), e1642. https://doi.org/10.1002/hsr2.1642
Lee, E. Y., Cha, S.-A., Yun, J.-S., Lim, S.-Y., Lee, J.-H., Ahn, Y.-B., Yoon, K.-H., Hyun, M. K., & Ko, S.-H. (2022). Efficacy of Personalized Diabetes Self-care Using an Electronic Medical Record–Integrated Mobile App in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: 6-Month Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 24(7), e37430. https://doi.org/10.2196/37430
Sendekie , A., Netere, A., & Kasahun, A. (2022). Medication adherence and its impact on glycemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients with comorbidity: A multicenter cross-sectional study in Northwest Ethiopia. ProQuest, 8(8), e0274971. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274971
Sun, D., Zhou, T., Heianza, Y., Li, X., Fan, M., Fonseca, V. A., & Qi, L. (2019). Type 2 Diabetes and Hypertension. Circulation Research, 124(6), 930–937. https://doi.org/10.1161/circresaha.118.314487
Williams, D. M., Jones, H., & Stephens, J. W. (2022). Personalized Type 2 Diabetes Management: An Update on Recent Advances and Recommendations. Diabetes, Metabolic Syndrome and Obesity: Targets and Therapy, Volume 15(1), 281–295. https://doi.org/10.2147/dmso.s331654
Yasmin, F., Nahar, N., Banu, B., Ali, L., Sauerborn, R., & Souares, A. (2020). The influence of mobile phone-based health reminders on patient adherence to medications and healthy lifestyle recommendations for effective management of diabetes type 2: a randomized control trial in Dhaka, Bangladesh. BMC Health Services Research, 20(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-05387-z
write