Cited by 16Medication Adherence and ComplianceTechnology Use by Older AdultsMobile Health and mHealth Applications

Prevalence and correlates of medication reminder app ‘use and use intention’ among older adults

Open access
Ping, Yongjing, Visaria, Abhijit, Suppiah, Sumithra Devi, Tan, Yi Wen, Malhotra, Rahul·2022·Exploratory Research in Clinical and Social Pharmacy

Abstract

Background: Medication adherence is relatively poor among older adults. Although there exist medication reminder apps, data on the prevalence and correlates of their 'use and use intention' by older adults are limited. Objective: To examine the prevalence, and socio-demographic and health correlates of medication reminder app use and use intention among older adults in Singapore. Methods: Data from a nationally representative survey of 2228 adults aged 62 years and above, who were taking at least one prescription medication, were analysed. Medication reminder app use (in the past one month) and use intention (in the next one month) were self-reported. Bivariate and multivariable logistic regression models were used to identify the correlates of medication reminder app use and use intention. Results: The prevalence of medication reminder app use and use intention was low at 2.6% (comprising 0.5% for use and 2.1% for use intention). Age, ethnicity, education level, previous participation in information technology/computer-related courses, comorbidity, health literacy, medication adherence and polypharmacy were correlated with app use and use intention in multivariable analyses. Conclusion: The very low prevalence of medication reminder app use and use intention among older adults in Singapore and identified correlates point to opportunities to increase the use of such apps.

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.rcsop.2022.100150

Cites

31 of 31 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ping, Y., Visaria, A., Suppiah, S. D., Tan, Y. W., & Malhotra, R.
Affiliations
Duke-NUS Medical School (SG)
Corresponding author
Malhotra, Rahul
Venue
Exploratory Research in Clinical and Social Pharmacy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-06
Volume
6
Pages
100150
ISSN
2667-2766 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4281714689
Cited by
15
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2
FWCI
3.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Exploratory Research in Clinical and Social Pharmacy (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Medication Adherence and Compliance
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Technology Use by Older Adults
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
Keywords
medication reminder app, medication adherence, older adults, intention to use, polypharmacy, health literacy, comorbidities, sociodemographic correlates, Singapore

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