Cited by 685Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsMedication Adherence and ComplianceHealth, Technology, Consumer Behavior

Mobile Telephone Text Messaging for Medication Adherence in Chronic Disease: A Meta-analysis

Open access
Thakkar, Jay, Kurup, Rahul, Laba, Tracey-Lea, Santo, Karla, Thiagalingam, Aravinda, Rodgers, Anthony, Woodward, Mark, Redfern, Julie +1 more·2016·JAMA Internal Medicine

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Adherence to long-term therapies in chronic disease is poor. Traditional interventions to improve adherence are complex and not widely effective. Mobile telephone text messaging may be a scalable means to support medication adherence. OBJECTIVES: To conduct a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials to assess the effect of mobile telephone text messaging on medication adherence in chronic disease. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PsycINFO, and CINAHL (from database inception to January 15, 2015), as well as reference lists of the articles identified. The data were analyzed in March 2015. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized clinical trials evaluating a mobile telephone text message intervention to promote medication adherence in adults with chronic disease. DATA EXTRACTION: Two authors independently extracted information on study characteristics, text message characteristics, and outcome measures as per the predefined protocol. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Odds ratios and pooled data were calculated using random-effects models. Risk of bias and study quality were assessed as per Cochrane guidelines. Disagreement was resolved by consensus. RESULTS: Sixteen randomized clinical trials were included, with 5 of 16 using personalization, 8 of 16 using 2-way communication, and 8 of 16 using a daily text message frequency. The median intervention duration was 12 weeks, and self-report was the most commonly used method to assess medication adherence. In the pooled analysis of 2742 patients (median age, 39 years and 50.3% [1380 of 2742] female), text messaging significantly improved medication adherence (odds ratio, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.52-2.93; P < .001). The effect was not sensitive to study characteristics (intervention duration or type of disease) or text message characteristics (personalization, 2-way communication, or daily text message frequency). In a sensitivity analysis, our findings remained robust to change in inclusion criteria based on study quality (odds ratio, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.21-2.29; P = .002). There was moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 62%) across clinical trials. After adjustment for publication bias, the point estimate was reduced but remained positive for an intervention effect (odds ratio, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.18-2.39). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Mobile phone text messaging approximately doubles the odds of medication adherence. This increase translates into adherence rates improving from 50% (assuming this baseline rate in patients with chronic disease) to 67.8%, or an absolute increase of 17.8%. While promising, these results should be interpreted with caution given the short duration of trials and reliance on self-reported medication adherence measures. Future studies need to determine the features of text message interventions that improve success, as well as appropriate patient populations, sustained effects, and influences on clinical outcomes.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.7667

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Higgins JPT, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Chapter 16.5.4: How to include multiple groups from one study. In: Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1.0. http://www.cochrane-handbook.org. Updated March 2011. Accessed January 20, 2015.
  2. Deeks JJ, Higgins JPT, Altman DG. Chapter 9.5: Heterogeneity. In: Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1.0. http://www.cochrane-handbook.org. Updated March 2011. Accessed January 20, 2015.
  3. Márquez Contreras E, de la Figuera von Wichmann M, Gil Guillén V, et al. Effectiveness of an intervention to provide information to patients with hypertension as short text messages and reminders sent to their mobile phone (HTA-Alert) [in Spanish]. Aten Primaria. 2004;34(8):399-405.
  4. Nunes V, Neilson J, O'Flynn N, et al. Clinical Guidelines and Evidence Review for Medicines Adherence: Involving Patients in Decisions About Prescribed Medicines and Supporting Adherence. London, England: National Collaborating Centre for Primary Care and Royal College of General Practitioners; 2009.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Thakkar, J., Kurup, R., Laba, T.-L., Santo, K., Thiagalingam, A., Rodgers, A., Woodward, M., Redfern, J., & Chow, C. K.
Affiliations
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • Westmead Hospital (AU)
Corresponding author
Thakkar, Jay
Venue
JAMA Internal Medicine
Published
2016-03-01
Volume
176
Issue
3
Pages
340
ISSN
2168-6106 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2272515352
Cited by
685
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 41 · 2025: 47 · 2024: 49 · 2023: 69 · 2022: 72 · 2021: 89 · 2020: 88 · 2019: 83 · 2018: 62 · 2017: 55 · 2016: 30
FWCI
14.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Medication Adherence and Compliance
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Health, Technology, Consumer Behavior
Keywords
chronic disease, mobile health intervention, SMS reminders, personalized reminders, two-way communication, publication bias, intervention duration, study quality heterogeneity, chronic disease patients, patient-provider communication
MeSH terms
Adult, Chronic Disease, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Odds Ratio, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Databases, Factual, Reminder Systems, Medication Adherence, Text Messaging

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review