Cited by 89Medication Adherence and CompliancePharmacy and Medical PracticesPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare

Evidence-based interventions to improve patient compliance with antihypertensive and lipid-lowering medications

Petrilla, A. A., Benner, J. S., Battleman, D. S., Tierce, J. C., Hazard, E. H.·2005·International Journal of Clinical Practice

Abstract

The MEDLINE database was searched from 1972 to June 2002 to identify studies of interventions designed to improve compliance with antihypertensive or lipid-lowering medications. Studies were required to employ a controlled design, follow patients for >or=6 months and measure compliance by a method other than patient self-report. The literature review yielded 62 studies describing 79 interventions. Overall, 56% of interventions were reported to improve patient compliance. When only those studies meeting minimum criteria for methodological quality were considered, 22 interventions remained and 12 were recommended, because they demonstrated a significant improvement in compliance. Recommended interventions included fixed-dose combination drugs, once-daily or once-weekly dosing schedules, unit-dose packaging, educational counselling by telephone, case management by pharmacists, treatment in pharmacist- or nurse-operated disease management clinics, mailed refill reminders, self-monitoring, dose-tailoring, rewards and various combination strategies. Personalised, patient-focused programs that involved frequent contact with health professionals or a combination of interventions were the most effective at improving compliance. Less-intensive strategies, such as prescribing products that simplify the medication regimen or sending refill reminders, achieved smaller improvements in compliance but may be cost-effective due to their low cost.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1368-5031.2005.00704.x

Cites

75 of 75 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Petrilla, A. A., Benner, J. S., Battleman, D. S., Tierce, J. C., & Hazard, E. H.
Affiliations
Pfizer (United States) (US)
Venue
International Journal of Clinical Practice
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005-11-18
Volume
59
Issue
12
Pages
1441-1451
ISSN
1368-5031 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1641835206
Cited by
89
References
75
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 8
FWCI
0.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Journal of Clinical Practice (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Medication Adherence and Compliance
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmacy and Medical Practices
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Keywords
medication adherence, antihypertensive drugs, lipid-lowering drugs, fixed-dose combination, once-daily dosing, unit-dose packaging, pharmacist counseling, telephone counseling, self-monitoring, dose tailoring, reward, cost-effectiveness
MeSH terms
Ambulatory Care, Antihypertensive Agents, Hypolipidemic Agents, Cardiovascular Diseases, Counseling, Drug Administration Schedule, Drug Packaging, Drug Therapy, Combination, Humans, Medical Records, Patient Compliance, Telephone, Reminder Systems, Case Management

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