Background Patients have evolved from mere objects of study to active contributors to drug research in recent decades. Since individual patient's influence to change research processes effectively is limited, patient groups play an important role in the planning and conducting of pharmaceutical studies. Patient group engagement in drug research is usually seen as being beneficial from an ethical viewpoint as well as from the perspective of research practice, while potential disadvantages and risks have been discussed considerably less. Purpose A systematic review of reasons was conducted to allow for an overview of the reasons for and against involving patient groups in drug research. Methods The literature search was conducted in PubMed and Web of Science. Reasons concerning the influence of patient groups on drug research were extracted and synthesized using qualitative content analysis. The review's main limitation arises from a lack of critical appraisal regarding the quality of the reasons. Results A total of 2271 references were retrieved, of which 97 were included in the analysis. Data extraction revealed 91 (73.4%) reasons for and 30 (24.2%) reasons against involving patient organizations in drug research, and 3 (2.4%) ambivalent reasons; amounting to 124 reasons. The main groups of reasons were clustered around the categories quality of research, acquisition and allocation of resources, and the patient role in research. Conclusion This is the first systematic review of reasons concerning the influence of patient groups on drug research. It provides a basis for a continuing debate about the value as well as the limits of involving patient groups. Due to the diversity of research projects there can be no general recommendation for or against patient group involvement. More research is necessary to assess potential advantages and disadvantages of patient groups' influence on other types of research (eg genetics). © 2020 Rach et al.Patient adherence to medication is an ongoing concern for clinicians, obfuscating treatment efficacy and resulting in wastage of medicine, reduced clinical benefit, and increased mortality. Despite this, procedural guidance on how clinicians should best engage patients regarding their medicine-taking is limited in the United Kingdom. Adherence for chronic conditions is notably complex, requiring clear education, communication, and behavioural shifts to initiate and sustain daily regimens successfully. This article explores current clinician guidance on assuring patient adherence to medication within the National Health Service, comparing it to that provided for healthcare workers in the field of behavioural change. Outlining the inertia of the former and the progress of the latter, we consider what steps should be taken to address this deficit, including greater focus on patient concerns, as well as knowledge translation for healthcare professionals in future adherence research. Current United Kingdom clinical guidance for assuring patient adherence is largely outdated based on inconclusive evidence for best practice. However, efforts to encourage behavioural change in the public health setting demonstrate evidence-based success. Integrating knowledge generated around adherence behaviour and the practical application of adherence and behavioural change research, as well as funding for longer-term studies with a focus on clinical outcomes, may help to solidify the NICE guidance on adherence and further progress the field. This would require close involvement from patient groups and networks informing ethical aspects of study design and clinical implementation. © 2020 Read et al.Background Enhancing diabetes self-management (DSM) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) can reduce the risk of complications, enhance healthier lifestyles, and improve quality of life. Furthermore, vulnerable groups struggle more with DSM. Aim To explore barriers and facilitators related to DSM in vulnerable groups through the perspectives of patients with T2D and healthcare professionals (HCPs). Methods Data were collected through three interactive workshops with Danish-speaking patients with T2D (n=6), Urdu-speaking patients with T2D (n=6), and HCPs (n=16) and analyzed using systematic text condensation. Results The following barriers to DSM were found among members of vulnerable groups with T2D 1) lack of access to DSM support, 2) interference and judgment from one's social environment, and 3) feeling powerless or helpless. The following factors facilitated DSM among vulnerable persons with T2D 1) a person-centered approach, 2) peer support, and 3) practical and concrete knowledge about DSM. Several barriers and facilitators expressed by persons with T2D, particularly those who spoke Danish, were also expressed by HCPs. Conclusion Vulnerable patients with T2D preferred individualized and practice-based education tailored to their needs. More attention should be paid to training HCPs to handle feelings of helplessness and lack of motivation among vulnerable groups, particularly among ethnic minority patients, and to tailor care to ethnic minorities.  https://www.selleckchem.com/products/sc-43.html  © 2020 Christensen et al.Adherence to asthma medications is generally poor and undermines clinical outcomes. Poor adherence is characterized by underuse of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), often accompanied by over-reliance on short-acting β2-agonists for symptom relief. To identify drivers of poor medication adherence, a targeted literature search was performed in MEDLINE and EMBASE for articles presenting qualitative data evaluating medication adherence in asthma patients (≥12 years old), published from January 1, 2012 to February 26, 2018. A thematic analysis of 21 relevant articles revealed several key themes driving poor medication adherence, including asthma-specific drivers and more general drivers common to chronic diseases. Due to the episodic nature of asthma, many patients felt that their daily life was not substantially impacted; consequently, many harbored doubts about the accuracy of their diagnosis or were in denial about the impact of the disease and, in turn, the need for long-term treatment. This was further compounded by poor patient-physician communication, which contributed to suboptimal knowledge about asthma medications, including lack of understanding of the distinction between maintenance and reliever inhalers, suboptimal inhaler technique, and concerns about ICS side effects.