The Perspectives of Adolescents and Young Adults on Adherence to Prophylaxis in Hemophilia: A Qualitative Study
Received 27 September 2019
Accepted for publication 5 December 2019
Published 23 January 2020 Volume 2020:14 Pages 163—171
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single anonymous peer review
Peer reviewer comments 2
Editor who approved publication: Dr Johnny Chen
JW Hoefnagels,1 MC Kars,2 K Fischer,1 REG Schutgens,1 LH Schrijvers1,3
1Van Creveldkliniek, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands; 2Department of General Practice, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands; 3Institute of Nursing Studies, University of Applied Sciences, Utrecht, the Netherlands
Correspondence: JW Hoefnagels
Van Creveldkliniek, Division Internal Medicine and Dermatology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Room C01.409, PO Box 85500, Utrecht 3508, GA, the Netherlands
Tel +31 88 75 584 50
Fax +31 88755438
Purpose: Adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with severe hemophilia use prophylaxis that requires a high level of adherence. The present study aimed to explore the underlying reason for adherence and non-adherence to prophylaxis in hemophilia from the perspective of AYAs.
Patients and Methods: A qualitative study in Dutch AYAs with hemophilia (14– 25 years) using prophylaxis was executed. Focus group interviews and individual interviews were recorded, transcribed, coded and analyzed using an iterative process. Member checking in three respondents was used to validate the potential model.
Results: A total of 21 interviews were performed. Parental support decreased when AYAs gained more treatment responsibilities, which resulted in a higher risk for non-adherence. AYAs were weighing their potential bleeding risk per activity based on the wish to do what they prefer while also wanting to simultaneously feel safe. When bleeding with low impact on their daily life occurred, or when bleeding remained absent, AYAs felt safe and the perceived need for prophylaxis decreased.
Conclusion: The level of treatment responsibility per AYA and estimated risks per activity were the two main underlying reasons for (non-)adherence.
Clinical implications: We suggest using a conversation technique to discuss adherence, especially during bleeding assessment visits.
Keywords: hemophilia, compliance, qualitative study, barrier, facilitator, self-management
This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.Download Article [PDF] View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]