Journal of Medical Internet Research - International Scientific Journal for Medical Research, Information and Communication on the Internet #Preprint #PeerReviewMe: Warning: This is a unreviewed preprint. Readers are warned that the document has not been peer-reviewed by expert/patient reviewers or an academic editor, may contain misleading claims, and is likely to undergo changes before final publication, if accepted, or may have been rejected/withdrawn. Readers with interest and expertise are encouraged to sign up as peer-reviewer, if the paper is within an open peer-review period. Please cite this preprint only for review purposes or for grant applications and CVs (if you are the author). Background: Between 20% and 50% of patients do not take their medication correctly, and this leads to increased morbidity and inefficacy of therapeutic approaches. Fostering treatment adherence is a priority objective for all health systems. The growth of mobile applications to facilitate therapeutic adherence has significantly grown in recent years. However, not all of them have evaluated the effectiveness for their purpose. Objective: To analyze whether mobile applications are perceived as useful for managing medication at home and if they actually contribute to increasing treatment adherence in patients. Methods: We carried out a systematic review of research published using the Scopus, Cochrane Library, Proquest and Medline databases and analyzed the information about their contribution to increasing therapeutic adherence and the perceived usefulness of mobile applications. This review examined studies published between 2000 and 2017. Results: Eleven studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Seven studies confirmed that the mobile application increased treatment adherence and in five of them the differences in adherence before and after the study were statistically significant. The users found mobile applications easy to use, useful for managing their medication. The patients were mostly satisfied with their use. Conclusions: The use of mobile applications helps increase treatment adherence and they are an appropriate method for managing medication at home.

Medication errors have been analyzed as a health professionals' responsibility (due to mistakes in prescription, preparation or dispensing). However, sometimes, patients themselves (or their caregivers) make mistakes in the administration of the medication. The epidemiology of patient medication errors (PEs) has been scarcely reviewed in spite of its impact on people, on therapeutic effectiveness and on incremental cost for the health systems. This study reviews and describes the methodological approaches and results of published studies on the frequency, causes and consequences of medication errors committed by patients at home. A review of research articles published between 1990 and 2014 was carried out using MEDLINE, Web-of-Knowledge, Scopus, Tripdatabase and Index Medicus. The frequency of PE was situated between 19 and 59%. The elderly and the preschooler population constituted a higher number of mistakes than others. The most common were: incorrect dosage, forgetting, mixing up medications, failing to recall indications and taking out-of-date or inappropriately stored drugs. The majority of these mistakes have no negative consequences. Health literacy, information and communication and complexity of use of dispensing devices were identified as causes of PEs. Apps and other new technologies offer several opportunities for improving drug safety.

The growth of the aging population leads to the increase of chronic diseases, of the burden of multimorbility, and of the complexity polypharmacy. The prevalence of medication errors rises in patients with polypharmacy in primary care, and this is a major concern to healthcare systems. This study reviews the published literature on the inappropriate use of medicines in order to articulate recommendations on how to reduce it in chronic patients, particularly in those who are elderly, polymedicated, or multipathological. A systematic review of articles published from January 2000 to October 2015 was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychInfo, Scopus, The Cochrane Library, and Index Medicus databases. We selected 80 studies in order to analyse the content that addressed the question under consideration. Our literature review found that half of patients know what their prescribed treatment is; that most of elderly people take five or more medications a day; that in elderly, polymedicated people, the probability of a medication error occurring is higher; that new tools have been recently developed to reduce errors; that elderly patients can understand written information but the presentation and format is an important factor; and that a high percentage of patients have remaining doubts after their visit. Thus, strategies based on the evidence should be applied in order to reduce medication errors.

Objectives To determine the volume of health professionals who suffered distress due to their care of patients with COVID-19 and to analyse the direction in which the response capacity of the professionals to face future waves of COVID-19 is evolving. Design A cross-sectional study. Setting Primary care and hospitals in Spain. Participants A non-randomised sample of 685 professionals (physicians, nurses and other health staff). Primary and secondary outcome measures Frequency and intensity of stress responses measured by the Acute Stress of Health Professionals Caring COVID-19 Scale (EASE). Variation of stress responses according to the number of deaths per day per territory and the evolutionary stage of the COVID-19 outbreak measured by the Kruskal-Wallis and the Mann-Whitney U tests. Results The average score on the EASE Scale was 11.1 (SD 6.7) out of 30. Among the participants, 44.2% presented a good emotional adjustment, 27.4% a tolerable level of distress, 23.9% medium–high emotional load and 4.5% extreme acute stress. The stress responses were more intense in the most affected territories (12.1 vs 9.3, p=0.003) and during the disillusionment phase (12.7 vs 8.5 impact, 10.2 heroic and 9.8 honeymoon, p=0.000). Conclusions The pandemic has affected the mental health of a significant proportion of health professionals which may reduce their resilience in the face of future waves of COVID-19. The institutional approaches to support the psychological needs of health professionals are essential to ensure optimal care considering these results.

(1) Background: The physical and psychological consequences suffered by informal caregivers have been extensively studied. MHealth solutions appear to be an opportunity to help overcome the caregiver burden. The objective of this study was to evaluate available mobile applications for informal caregivers of people who are ill and to determine whether these mobile applications were developed considering the needs of caregiver users. (2) Methods: A systematic review was carried out using the MEDLINE, ProQuest, and Scopus databases. The information about mobile applications for informal caregivers was analyzed. This review examined studies published between January 2011 and July 2020 in English. The data extracted from each paper included the development of the mobile application, if that application was assessed considering the caregivers’ needs, functions of the mobile application, measures for evaluating caregivers’ needs, measures for evaluating the effectiveness of the mobile application, and the main results obtained. (3) Results: Eleven studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The most common functions of the apps were summaries with information about the person they care for, educational information, resources and services for caregivers, solutions to common problems during care, and questionnaires to assess caregivers’ well-being. Most of these studies assessed caregivers’ needs before designing mobile applications to adapt them to the needs of their users. (4) Conclusions: Mobile applications for caregivers appear to provide solutions for them. Moreover, the effectiveness of these apps will depend largely on whether their characteristics match users’ needs. Current studies have shown the poor quality of evidence.