Aims: We translated the ABC adherence taxonomy (i.e. 7 terms and their corresponding definitions) published by Vrijens et al. (2012) into French and German without changing the original meaning with the aim to promote a standardised taxonomy for medication adherence to French‐ and German‐speaking researchers and clinicians.Methods: A Delphi survey was performed. To generate round 1, we identified French and German synonyms for the 7 adherence terms through a literature search in PubMed. Investigators translated the original English definitions into French and German. Panellists were members of ESPACOMP—the International Society for Patient Medication Adherence; experts suggested by ESPACOMP members and first authors of medication adherence publications in French and German. Google forms were used to create online questionnaires. Delphi rounds were performed until consensus was reached. The consensus was defined according to the acceptance rate as moderate consensus (50–75%), consensus (>75–95%), and strong consensus (>95%).Results: The literature search resulted in 4–6 (French) and 4–7 (German) items per English term. Delphi rounds were launched between November 2016 and April 2018. Three rounds sufficed to reach consensus on all terms and definitions from 26 French‐speaking and 25 German‐speaking panellists. Preferred terms for medication adherence are adhésion médicamenteuse (82%) in French and Medikamentenadhärenz (88%) in German.Conclusion: The use of a common terminology for medication adherence with translations in French and German will contribute to standardise the vocabulary, to harmonise research projects and ultimately ease comparison of study results among researchers and clinicians.

Background: Pharmacists are increasingly involved in strategies to fight antimicrobial resistance by ensuring optimised antibiotic (AB) use, including adherence support. Successful adherence interventions should be tailored to patients’ barriers and validated instruments are needed. This study aimed to identify adherence barriers to AB treatment, develop a self-report questionnaire, and validate it in outpatients. Method: Adherence barriers were identified through a systematic literature search and focus group discussion. Unmodifiable and irrelevant barriers were excluded from further processing. A validation study assessed the questionnaire’s internal reliability and construct validity by comparing the questionnaire’s score with electronically monitored adherence data. Results: A 15-item questionnaire was created. Overall, 68 patients were included in the construct validation analysis (60.3% female). The mean consecutive taking adherence was 88% and the most frequently reported barriers were “worries about side-effects” (37%) and “having swallowing difficulties” (19%). Three items were excluded from the questionnaire, which was supported by an increase of Cronbach’s alpha (0.69 to 0.70). The 12-item version’s score correlated significantly with medication adherence rate (r = −0.34, p < 0.01). Conclusion: The self-report questionnaire is a reliable and valid tool to pre-emptively assess adherence barriers in outpatients prescribed ABs. In the future, appropriate adherence interventions can be matched to barriers and tested in a pilot intervention study.

Objectives: Since 2002, Swiss community pharmacists have dispensed emergency contraception (EC) as pharmacist-only medicine ideally using the official Swiss protocol. Our study aimed to determine pharmacists’ resolution of an imaginary EC case, compliance with the protocol, and provision of information on the risk of sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Methods: We conducted a simulated patient study with 69 students who each visited a community pharmacy. The scenario started with the student requesting the ‘morning after pill’. Current practice was assessed using an online evaluation form adapted from the Medication-Related Consultation Framework. Descriptive and statistical analyses were carried out. Results: All pharmacists correctly identified that the person needed EC. All pharmacists used an EC protocol and asked on average 10.9 (standard deviation 0.68) of 11 compulsory EC assessment questions. In total, 93% of pharmacists addressed EC counselling items and 56% addressed the risk of STIs, mainly by mentioning that condoms offered the best protection (76%). Conclusions: Community pharmacists correctly issued the EC, complied with the dispensing protocol and used their professional judgement to ensure optimal EC use. There is nevertheless room for improvement regarding pharmacists’ STI counselling. Finally, the protocol’s STI section could be enriched with specific information to guide counselling.

Information on medication adherence is missing in patient files, although it might be helpful to optimize treatment. An adherence report that presents data from electronic adherence monitoring and provides recommendations regarding pharmacological treatment could close this gap. We aimed to develop an adherence reporting form that combines suitable calculations and graphical representations to facilitate the physicians’ interpretation of (non-)adherence. Two consensus development panels were conducted. First, pharmacists with expertise in adherence monitoring debated the items needed to calculate and illustrate electronic adherence data. Second, physicians discussed the items they would need for an adherence report and were encouraged to propose new items. Preference was indicated by raising a green or red card. Voting was repeated until consensus was obtained. Third, first drafts of the adherence reporting form were created by two pharmacists. Seven pharmacists agreed on four metrics to express medication adherence and three graphical representations. Five physicians approved the four metrics and rated the dot chart as the most useful illustration for judging the patient’s adherence patterns. Additionally, they required a clinical–pharmaceutical evaluation of the adherence estimates considering drug-related properties. We developed an adherence reporting form for the first time in a compact format and based on the recommendations of experts. In addition, we considered the preferences of physicians, who appreciated the clarity of the reporting form.

In many countries, community pharmacies provide sexual-health-related services to limit the spread of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), including chlamydia testing. To identify suitable target groups for pharmacy-based chlamydia testing in Switzerland, we aimed to assess chlamydia prevalence, identify risk groups, and delineate screening strategies. We conducted a systematic literature search up to December 2019 in PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science, according to the PRISMA guidelines, using as keywords “chlamydia”, “screening”, and “Switzerland”. Two researchers screened the title, abstract, and full-text article and assessed the methodological quality. The literature search generated 108 hits, and nine studies were included. Chlamydia prevalence ranged between 0.8 and 12.8%. Most frequently affected were undocumented women undergoing voluntary termination of pregnancy (12.8%, 95% CI: 8.4–18.9), HIV-positive men who have sex with men (10.9%, 95% CI: 9.2–17.6), and adult offenders (6.5%, 95% CI: 3.2–9.0). Systematic screening was suggested for the first two risk groups and women suffering a miscarriage. To conclude, chlamydia infections are prevalent in Switzerland, but the identified risk groups are difficult to reach for a pharmacy-based testing service. More studies are needed to identify suitable target groups, including customers seeking sexual health services, particularly emergency contraception users who already receive counselling for STIs at community pharmacies.