Cited by 65Medication Adherence and ComplianceRenal Transplantation Outcomes and TreatmentsAdolescent and Pediatric Healthcare

The challenges of using medication event monitoring technology with pediatric transplant patients

Open access
Shellmer, Diana A., Zelikovsky, Nataliya·2007·Pediatric Transplantation

Abstract

Abstract: This study investigated the advantages and challenges of using Medication Electronic Monitoring System (MEMS) technology to examine adherence among pediatric kidney transplant patients. Twenty‐nine patients participated in the study, with a mean age of 14.03 yr (SD = 3.34, range 8–19 yr). Patients were given a MEMS bottle and cap to be used with their primary immunosuppressant medication over a three‐month period. Issues related to study eligibility, recruitment, and participant maintenance were recorded. Patients completed the Debriefing Form regarding their experiences with the MEMS. Many younger patients were on liquid medications affecting the feasibility of this technology across ages. Acceptance of this technology proved difficult, as many patients either declined upfront or dropped out because they did not want to use the MEMS. Of the final sample, 41% found transferring medication into the MEMS bottle difficult and 27.2% reported that the MEMS was a burden and/or difficult to transport. Another 22% of the patients reported that using the MEMS changed their routine, and 10.2% worried about missing their medications. Pediatric transplant centers should be cautious about solely relying on MEMS to examine adherence until more research is conducted on the feasibility, acceptance, and utility of this technology.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1399-3046.2007.00681.x

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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
Shellmer, D. A., & Zelikovsky, N.
Affiliations
Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (US)
Corresponding author
Zelikovsky, Nataliya
Venue
Pediatric Transplantation
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-03-16
Volume
11
Issue
4
Pages
422-428
ISSN
  • 1397-3142 (ISSN-L)
  • 1399-3046
OpenAlex
W2106246296
Cited by
65
References
15
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
5.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Pediatric Transplantation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (L40 DK079757)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Medication Adherence and Compliance
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Transplantation › Renal Transplantation Outcomes and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Speech and Hearing › Adolescent and Pediatric Healthcare
Keywords
medication event monitoring system, MEMS, medication adherence, pediatric kidney transplantation, immunosuppressive therapy, technology acceptance, feasibility, participant recruitment and retention, liquid medications, patient burden
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Child, Computer Systems, Equipment Design, Feasibility Studies, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Graft Rejection, Humans, Immunosuppressive Agents, Male, Patient Compliance, Time Factors, Kidney Transplantation, Drug Monitoring

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