Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/10098
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorMoney, A-
dc.contributor.authorBarnett, J-
dc.contributor.authorKuljis, J-
dc.contributor.authorLucas, J-
dc.date.accessioned2015-02-04T12:55:38Z-
dc.date.available2013-06-01-
dc.date.available2015-02-04T12:55:38Z-
dc.date.issued2013-
dc.identifier.citationScandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 27 (2): 335 - 344, (June 2013)en_US
dc.identifier.issn1471-6712-
dc.identifier.issn0283-9318-
dc.identifier.urihttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1471-6712.2012.01045.x/full-
dc.identifier.urihttp://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/10098-
dc.description.abstractBackground: In recent years, government initiatives have proposed that patient self-care should serve as a key resource in response to the anticipated increase in global demand for health care. However, if patients are to be empowered as self-carers, barriers to engagement must be identified and overcome. Anaphylaxis is an increasingly common life threatening allergic reaction. Patients at risk of anaphylaxis are prescribed epinephrine auto-injectors and play a crucial role in delivering their own care and management of this condition. One key recommendation is that patients routinely carry an epinephrine auto-injector with them, and deploy the device when needed. However, only a small proportion of patients that require epinephrine actually receive it. Objective: To explore the reasons why patients who have been prescribed epinephrine auto-injectors fail to adhere to self-care and management recommendations. Methods: In-depth interviews with 15 adults who have been prescribed epinephrine auto-injectors were carried out to explore the barriers that exist in the provision of effective self-care and management of anaphylaxis. Results: Inconsistent health professional advice, perceived stigma of carrying a ‘weapon-like’ device, poor device design and limited patient training were identified as barriers to carriage or use. Patients were reluctant to carry devices in public because of perceived and observed stigma and suspicion. They were happy to ignore expiry dates and some participants were confident that the emergency services would provide them with the appropriate care they needed, and therefore did not carry the device in urban areas. Conclusions and clinical implications: Improved training of patients, the public and health professionals around both the carriage and use of auto-injectors are areas for urgent attention if improved levels of self-care are to be attained. The design of epinephrine auto-injectors should also receive attention as patients often fail to carry them due to size and aesthetics. Key words: Adherence, allergy, anaphylaxis, empowerment, epinephrine, self-care, self-management, patient perspectivesen_US
dc.description.sponsorshipThis study was funded by grant number Ref: GR/S29874/01 from the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council.en_US
dc.format.extent335 - 344-
dc.format.extent335 - 344-
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherWileyen_US
dc.subjectAdherenceen_US
dc.subjectAllergyen_US
dc.subjectAnaphylaxisen_US
dc.subjectEmpowermenten_US
dc.subjectEpinephrineen_US
dc.subjectSelf-careen_US
dc.subjectSelf-managementen_US
dc.subjectPatient perspectivesen_US
dc.titlePatient perceptions of epinephrine auto-injectors: Exploring barriers to useen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6712.2012.01045.x-
dc.relation.isPartOfScandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences-
dc.relation.isPartOfScandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences-
pubs.issue2-
pubs.issue2-
pubs.publication-statusAccepted-
pubs.publication-statusAccepted-
pubs.volume27-
pubs.volume27-
pubs.organisational-data/Brunel-
pubs.organisational-data/Brunel/Brunel Staff by College/Department/Division-
pubs.organisational-data/Brunel/Brunel Staff by College/Department/Division/College of Engineering, Design and Physical Sciences-
pubs.organisational-data/Brunel/Brunel Staff by College/Department/Division/College of Engineering, Design and Physical Sciences/Dept of Computer Science-
pubs.organisational-data/Brunel/Brunel Staff by College/Department/Division/College of Engineering, Design and Physical Sciences/Dept of Computer Science/Computer Science-
pubs.organisational-data/Brunel/University Research Centres and Groups-
pubs.organisational-data/Brunel/University Research Centres and Groups/Brunel Business School - URCs and Groups-
pubs.organisational-data/Brunel/University Research Centres and Groups/Brunel Business School - URCs and Groups/Centre for Research into Entrepreneurship, International Business and Innovation in Emerging Markets-
pubs.organisational-data/Brunel/University Research Centres and Groups/School of Health Sciences and Social Care - URCs and Groups-
pubs.organisational-data/Brunel/University Research Centres and Groups/School of Health Sciences and Social Care - URCs and Groups/Brunel Institute for Ageing Studies-
pubs.organisational-data/Brunel/University Research Centres and Groups/School of Health Sciences and Social Care - URCs and Groups/Brunel Institute of Cancer Genetics and Pharmacogenomics-
pubs.organisational-data/Brunel/University Research Centres and Groups/School of Health Sciences and Social Care - URCs and Groups/Centre for Systems and Synthetic Biology-
pubs.organisational-data/Brunel/University Research Centres and Groups/School of Information Systems, Computing and Mathematics - URCs and Groups-
pubs.organisational-data/Brunel/University Research Centres and Groups/School of Information Systems, Computing and Mathematics - URCs and Groups/Multidisclipary Assessment of Technology Centre for Healthcare (MATCH)-
Appears in Collections:Dept of Computer Science Research Papers

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Fulltext.pdf654.43 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


Items in BURA are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.