Cited by 84Medication Adherence and ComplianceCancer survivorship and careBehavioral Health and Interventions

Identifying the determinants of adjuvant hormonal therapy medication taking behaviour in women with stages I-III breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Cahir, Caitriona, Guinan, Emer, Dombrowski, Stephan U., Sharp, Linda, Bennett, Kathleen·2015·Patient Education and Counseling

Abstract

Objective This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to identify the modifiable determinants of adjuvant hormonal therapy medication taking behaviour (MTB) in women with stage I-III breast cancer in clinical practice settings.Methods We searched PubMed EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL for articles investigating determinants of adjuvant hormonal therapy. Potentially modifiable determinants were identified and mapped to the 14 domains of the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), an integrative framework of theories of behavioural change. Meta-analysis was used to calculate pooled odds ratios for selected determinants.Results Potentially modifiable determinants were identified in 42 studies and mapped to 9 TDF domains. In meta-analysis treatment side-effects (Domain: Beliefs about Capabilities) and follow-up care with a general practitioner (vs. oncologist) (Social Influences) were significantly negatively associated with persistence (p<0.001) and number of medications (Behaviour Regulation) was significantly positively associated with persistence (p<0.003). Studies did not examine several domains (including Beliefs about Consequences, Intentions, Goals, Social Identity, Emotion and Knowledge) which have been reported to influence MTB in other disease groups.Conclusions There is some evidence that the domains Beliefs about Capabilities, Behaviour Regulation and Social Influences influence hormonal therapy MTB.Practice implications Further research is needed to develop effective interventions to improve hormonal therapy MTB.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.pec.2015.05.013

Cites

103 of 103 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

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

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cahir, C., Guinan, E., Dombrowski, S. U., Sharp, L., & Bennett, K.
Affiliations
  • Trinity College Dublin (IE)
  • University of Stirling (GB)
  • National Cancer Registry (IE)
Venue
Patient Education and Counseling
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-12
Volume
98
Issue
12
Pages
1524-1539
ISSN
0738-3991 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W628474126
Cited by
84
References
103
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 1
FWCI
0.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Patient Education and Counseling (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Stirling Online Research Repository (University of Stirling) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • Health Research Board
  • Trinity College Dublin
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Medication Adherence and Compliance
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
Keywords
adjuvant endocrine therapy, medication-taking behavior, breast cancer, treatment persistence, treatment side effects, behavioral regulation, social influence, beliefs about capabilities, Theoretical Domains Framework, behaviour change interventions

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