Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 444

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Meta-analysis of trials of interventions to improve medication adherence

Peterson, Andrew M., Takiya, Liza, Finley, Rebecca·2003·American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy

Abstract

The effect of tools and methods designed to enhance medication adherence that have been evaluated in randomized controlled trials was studied. A literature search was performed with MEDLINE, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, PsychLIT, ERIC, and EMBASE for the period from 1966 to December 2000. Only randomized, controlled trials with at least 10 subjects per intervention group were included. Of 484 articles evaluated, only 61 met the criteria for the meta-analysis. Multiple interventions or study samples were identified in 23 of the articles. Each intervention was counted as a separate study, yielding 95 cohorts totaling 18,922 subjects. Of these subjects, 9,604 (51%) received interventions and 9,318 served as controls. Cohorts reported between 1990 and 1999 accounted for 53% of the sample; 56% of all cohorts were based in physician offices and 26% involved hypertensive patients. Behavioral interventions accounted for 41 cohorts (8,885 subjects), educational interventions for 22 cohorts (6,392 subjects), and combined interventions for 32 cohorts (3,645 subjects). Homogeneity of groupings and effect sizes (ESs) were calculated for each type of intervention. Overall, the data were not homogeneous, so conclusions could not be derived from the entire body of data. The educational intervention and combined intervention cohorts were nonhomogeneous (p < 0.001 and p < 0.01, respectively); however, the behavioral intervention cohort was homogeneous (Q = 42.48, d.f. = 40, p = 0.36). The overall ES for behavioral interventions was 0.07 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.04-0.09). There were no significant differences among the behavioral interventions. Educational interventions had an overall ES of 0.11 (95% CI = 0.06-0.15); there were no significant differences among the educational interventions. The overall ES of the combined interventions was 0.08 (95% CI = 0.04-0.12). When stratifying the combined intervention group by type of behavioral intervention, mail reminders had the largest impact (ES = 0.38). Meta-analysis of studies of interventions to improve medication adherence revealed an increase in adherence of 4-11%. No single strategy appeared to be best.

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 · 10.1093/ajhp/60.7.657

Cites

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

Cited by

See all 444

Metadata

Authors
Peterson, A. M., Takiya, L., & Finley, R.
Venue
American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy
Published
2003-04-01
Volume
60
Issue
7
Pages
657-665
ISSN
  • 1079-2082 (ISSN-L)
  • 1535-2900
OpenAlex
W1887253310
Cited by
444
References
0
FWCI
4.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Meta-analysis of trials of interventions to improve medication adherence. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/ajhp/60.7.657
The paper
Peterson, A. M., Takiya, L., & Finley, R. (2003). Meta-analysis of trials of interventions to improve medication adherence. American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajhp/60.7.657

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.