Effectiveness of mHealth Interventions in Improving Medication Adherence Among People with Hypertension: a Systematic Review
Abstract
Purpose of review This study aims to systematically review existing evidence on the effectiveness of mobile health technology (mHealth) interventions in addressing medication adherence among people with hypertension.Recent findings Twenty-one studies of mHealth interventions were included in the final review after systematic searching and screening of publications from 2000 to 2017 in PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase. Key features of the mHealth interventions include high intervention intensity, multifactorial components, and patient-centered approaches with tailored content and interaction. All studies found tendencies to improvement in medication adherence, but only 12 studies reported that the improvements were statistically significant in the intervention groups compared with the control groups. Twelve studies also found that mHealth interventions were beneficial for blood pressure control. None of the studies was conducted in a low-income country. Our systematic review found evidence that mHealth interventions improved medication adherence and blood pressure control among people with hypertension. However, most studies were small in sample size and short in study duration, and not all results were statistically significant. Future research should focus on investigating the sustainability and generalizability of mHealth interventions.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Most interventions were designed to be used on a daily basis and completed within 1.5 months.
“We found that most interventions were designed to be used on a daily basis and completed within 1.5 months [52].”
Current evidence on digital health interventions is disproportionately concerned with high-income countries and hospital settings.
“Current evidence on digital health interventions is disproportionately concerned with high-income countries and hospital settings.”
From Digital health interventions for non-communicable disease management in primary health care in low-and middle-income countries (2023) · cites this paper as [21]
Most original studies and reviews on digital health interventions focused on high-income countries, hospital settings, or fields other than NCDs.
“However, most of these original studies and reviews focused on high-income countries, hospital settings, or fields other than NCDs15,16,19–22.”
From Digital health interventions for non-communicable disease management in primary health care in low-and middle-income countries (2023) · cites this paper as [21]
The included studies presented high heterogeneity in the outcomes of using digital health, which was also found in other systematic reviews.
“the included studies still presented high heterogeneity in the outcomes of using digital health, which was also found in other systematic reviews19–21.”
From Digital health interventions for non-communicable disease management in primary health care in low-and middle-income countries (2023) · cites this paper as [21]
In the included studies, there were positive improvements in disease management activities, such as adherence to medications and regimens.
“We also found positive improvements in disease management activities, such as adherence to medications and regimens, consistent with the existing literature20,21,83.”
From Digital health interventions for non-communicable disease management in primary health care in low-and middle-income countries (2023) · cites this paper as [21]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 51 · Cited by 106
- Authors
- Xiong, S., Berkhouse, H., Schooler, M., Pu, W., Sun, A., Gong, E., & Yan, L. L.
- Affiliations
- Duke Kunshan University (CN)
- The University of Melbourne (AU)
- Duke University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Gong, Enying
- Yan, Lijing L.
- Venue
- Current Hypertension Reports
- Published
- 2018-08-07
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 86-86
- ISSN
- 1522-6417 (ISSN-L)
- 1534-3111
- OpenAlex
- W2885981025
- Cited by
- 106
- References
- 51
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 2.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Current Hypertension Reports (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- World Health Organization
- 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
- mobile health intervention, medication adherence, hypertension, blood pressure control, mobile health technology, patient-centered interventions, intervention intensity, low-income countries
- MeSH terms
- Antihypertensive Agents, Humans, Hypertension, Telemedicine, 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
