Cited by 2,945Medication Adherence and CompliancePharmacy and Medical PracticesPatient Safety and Medication Errors

Interventions for enhancing medication adherence

Open access
Nieuwlaat, Robby, Wilczynski, Nancy, Navarro, Tamara, Hobson, Nicholas, Jeffery, Rebecca, Keepanasseril, Arun, Agoritsas, Thomas, Mistry, Niraj +8 more·2014·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Abstract

BACKGROUND: People who are prescribed self administered medications typically take only about half their prescribed doses. Efforts to assist patients with adherence to medications might improve the benefits of prescribed medications. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this review is to assess the effects of interventions intended to enhance patient adherence to prescribed medications for medical conditions, on both medication adherence and clinical outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We updated searches of The Cochrane Library, including CENTRAL (via http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cochranelibrary/search/), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO (all via Ovid), CINAHL (via EBSCO), and Sociological Abstracts (via ProQuest) on 11 January 2013 with no language restriction. We also reviewed bibliographies in articles on patient adherence, and contacted authors of relevant original and review articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included unconfounded RCTs of interventions to improve adherence with prescribed medications, measuring both medication adherence and clinical outcome, with at least 80% follow-up of each group studied and, for long-term treatments, at least six months follow-up for studies with positive findings at earlier time points. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted all data and a third author resolved disagreements. The studies differed widely according to medical condition, patient population, intervention, measures of adherence, and clinical outcomes. Pooling results according to one of these characteristics still leaves highly heterogeneous groups, and we could not justify meta-analysis. Instead, we conducted a qualitative analysis with a focus on the RCTs with the lowest risk of bias for study design and the primary clinical outcome. MAIN RESULTS: The present update included 109 new RCTs published since the previous update in January 2007, bringing the total number of RCTs to 182; we found five RCTs from the previous update to be ineligible and excluded them. Studies were heterogeneous for patients, medical problems, treatment regimens, adherence interventions, and adherence and clinical outcome measurements, and most had high risk of bias. The main changes in comparison with the previous update include that we now: 1) report a lack of convincing evidence also specifically among the studies with the lowest risk of bias; 2) do not try to classify studies according to intervention type any more, due to the large heterogeneity; 3) make our database available for collaboration on sub-analyses, in acknowledgement of the need to make collective advancement in this difficult field of research. Of all 182 RCTs, 17 had the lowest risk of bias for study design features and their primary clinical outcome, 11 from the present update and six from the previous update. The RCTs at lowest risk of bias generally involved complex interventions with multiple components, trying to overcome barriers to adherence by means of tailored ongoing support from allied health professionals such as pharmacists, who often delivered intense education, counseling (including motivational interviewing or cognitive behavioral therapy by professionals) or daily treatment support (or both), and sometimes additional support from family or peers. Only five of these RCTs reported improvements in both adherence and clinical outcomes, and no common intervention characteristics were apparent. Even the most effective interventions did not lead to large improvements in adherence or clinical outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Across the body of evidence, effects were inconsistent from study to study, and only a minority of lowest risk of bias RCTs improved both adherence and clinical outcomes. Current methods of improving medication adherence for chronic health problems are mostly complex and not very effective, so that the full benefits of treatment cannot be realized. The research in this field needs advances, including improved design of feasible long-term interventions, objective adherence measures, and sufficient study power to detect improvements in patient-important clinical outcomes. By making our comprehensive database available for sharing we hope to contribute to achieving these advances.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/14651858.cd000011.pub4

Cites

640 of 640 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Current methods of improving medication adherence for chronic health problems are mostly complex and not effective.

    “Although there is a wealth of controlled trials on interventions to improve adherence, current methods of improving medication adherence for chronic health problems are mostly complex and not effective [2,3,4].”
  • Other CF-related reviews and general adherence reviews have highlighted the limitations of many included trials in terms of having small sample sizes and being underpowered to detect a meaningful difference in adherence.

    “This review is in agreement with other, CF-related reviews and general adherence reviews, which have highlighted the limitations of many included trials in terms of having small sample sizes and being underpowered to detect a meaningful difference in adherence (Goldbeck 2014; Nieuwlaat 2014).”
  • Previous Cochrane Reviews on adherence and CF-specific reviews have not used a coding framework, so this review has improved on existing methodologies.

    “Previous Cochrane Reviews on adherence (Nieuwlaat 2014) and CF-specific reviews (Goldbeck 2014; Savage 2014) have not used a coding framework, so this review has improved on existing methodologies.”
  • Given the complexity of many adherence interventions tested to date and the way complex interventions are reported, it is often difficult to determine the content or active ingredients of effective interventions that bring about change.

    “Given the complexity of many adherence interventions tested to date (Nieuwlaat 2014), and the way in which complex interventions are reported or described in the literature, it is o en difficult to determine the content, or the 'active ingredients', of effective interventions that bring about change (Michie 2009).”
  • Understanding the active ingredients of promising interventions will make it easier to replicate effective interventions, reduce the potential waste of time and resources on trials of ineffective techniques, and inform adherence research in the future.

    “Understanding the 'active ingredients' of promising interventions will make it easier to replicate effective interventions; will reduce the potential waste of time and resources on trials of ineffective techniques (Michie 2009); and will inform adherence research in the future (Nieuwlaat 2014).”

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

5 of the 645 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nieuwlaat, R., Wilczynski, N., Navarro, T., Hobson, N., Jeffery, R., Keepanasseril, A., Agoritsas, T., Mistry, N., Iorio, A., Jack, S., Sivaramalingam, B., Iserman, E., Mustafa, R. A., Jedraszewski, D., Cotoi, C., & Haynes, R. B.
Affiliations
  • Hamilton General Hospital (CA)
  • McMaster University (CA)
  • St. Michael's Hospital (CA)
  • University of Guelph (CA)
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-11-20
Volume
2014
Issue
11
Pages
CD000011-CD000011
ISSN
  • 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-1858
OpenAlex
W1594567624
Cited by
2,945
References
645
Citations by year
2026: 64 · 2025: 119 · 2024: 108 · 2023: 147 · 2022: 157 · 2021: 177 · 2020: 200 · 2019: 190 · 2018: 209 · 2017: 244 · 2016: 224 · 2015: 191 · 2014: 214 · 2013: 186 · 2012: 124
FWCI
37.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Archive ouverte UNIGE (University of Geneva) (publishedVersion)
  • Archive ouverte UNIGE (University of Geneva) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Medication Adherence and Compliance
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmacy and Medical Practices
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
Keywords
medication adherence, adherence interventions, self-administered medication, clinical outcomes, risk of bias, quality of evidence, pill organizers, pharmacists
MeSH terms
Drug Therapy, Humans, Patient Education as Topic, Self Administration, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Publication Bias, Medication Adherence

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