Objective: Nonadherence to inhaled corticosteroids contributes to poor asthma control. This study evaluated two different theory-based intervention approaches to address nonadherence in adults with asthma using a person-based, qualitative approach to investigate comprehensibility, coherence and acceptability.Methods: The two intervention approaches addressed treatment beliefs and misconceptions in asthma, aiming to provide a common-sense rationale for medication adherence. Approach one reframed asthma using a concept of balance, the second approach was more traditional presenting medical consequences of nonadherence. We ran three focus group interviews involving 19 adults with asthma to investigate patient acceptability of the intervention approaches and their influence on perceptions of asthma and medication.Results: Approach one was perceived as novel compared to current practice, logical and easily understandable. Its use of non-medical jargon was perceived as representing information more positively, moving away from stigmatizing people with asthma. Approach two was perceived as not sufficiently novel, not applicable to everyone's illness experience and triggering fear.Conclusions: Patient feedback allowed us to refine our intervention strategy prior to running costly feasibility trials. Patient-based approaches for intervention planning may facilitate implementation and acceptability of interventions in practice.
Keywords: Asthma; adherence; focus group; health psychology; intervention; medication beliefs; person-based approach; qualitative.