Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 431

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 53 of the 53 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Most Common Barriers to Glaucoma Medication Adherence

Open access
Newman-Casey, Paula Anne, Robin, Alan L., Blachley, Taylor, Farris, Karen, Heisler, Michele, Resnicow, Ken, Lee, Paul P.·2015·Ophthalmology

Abstract

Purpose To both evaluate the frequency of eleven commonly cited barriers to optimal glaucoma medication adherence among glaucoma patients and identify barriers contributing to poor adherence. Design Prospective, cross-sectional survey. Participants 190 adults with glaucoma taking ≥1 glaucoma medication who received care in glaucoma clinics in Ann Arbor, MI and Baltimore, MD. Methods Participants completed a survey on demographic and disease characteristics, barriers to optimal glaucoma medication adherence, interest in an eye drop aid, and self-reported adherence (measured by the Morisky Adherence Scale). Descriptive statistics and logistic regression analyses were performed. Main Outcome Measures Frequency and number of barriers to adherence among both adherent and non-adherent patients. Odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals identifying barriers associated with poor adherence. Results 27% of the sample reported poor adherence. 61% of all participants cited multiple barriers and 10% cited a single barrier as impediments to optimal adherence. 29% of subjects cited no barriers, though only 13% of patients who cited no barriers were non-adherent. Among non-adherent patients, ≥31% cited each of the eleven barriers as important. Logistic regression analysis, adjusted for age, revealed that the following barriers were associated with higher odds of non-adherence: decreased self-efficacy, OR = 4.7 [95% CI 2.2–9.7, p= < 0.0001]; difficulty instilling drops, OR = 2.3 [95% CI 1.1–4.9, p= 0.03]; forgetfulness, OR = 5.6 [95% CI 2.6–12.1, p= < 0.0001]; and difficulties with the medication schedule, OR = 2.9 [1.4–6.0, p= 0.006]. For each additional barrier cited as important, there was a 10% increased odds of being non-adherent, OR = 1.1 [95% CI 1.0–1.2, p= 0.01]. Conclusion Each of the eleven barriers was important to at least 30% of surveyed patients with poor adherence, with the majority identifying multiple barriers to adherence. Low self-efficacy, forgetfulness, and difficulty with drop administration and the medication schedule were all barriers associated with poor adherence. Interventions to improve medication adherence must address each patient’s unique set of barriers.

Overview

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 · 10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.03.026

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

1 retracted

Show all 53 references

Cited by

See all 431

Metadata

Authors
Newman-Casey, P. A., Robin, A. L., Blachley, T., Farris, K., Heisler, M., Resnicow, K., & Lee, P. P.
Venue
Ophthalmology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-07
Volume
122
Issue
7
Pages
1308-1316
ISSN
0161-6420 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1842399002
Cited by
431
References
53
FWCI
20.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Most Common Barriers to Glaucoma Medication Adherence. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.03.026
The paper
Newman-Casey, P. A., Robin, A. L., Blachley, T., Farris, K., Heisler, M., Resnicow, K., & Lee, P. P. (2015). The Most Common Barriers to Glaucoma Medication Adherence. Ophthalmology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.03.026

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.