Cited by 184Medication Adherence and ComplianceRenal Transplantation Outcomes and TreatmentsDialysis and Renal Disease Management

Prevalence and Risk Factors of Non-Adherence with Immunosuppressive Medication in Kidney Transplant Patients

Open access
Denhaerynck, K, Steiger, J, Bock, A, Schäfer-Keller, P, Köfer, S, Thannberger, N, De Geest, S·2007·American Journal of Transplantation

Abstract

Non-adherence with immunosuppressive regimen is a major risk factor for poor outcome after kidney transplantation. Identifying patients at risk for non-adherence requires understanding the risk factors for non-adherence. This prospective study included a convenience sample of 249 adult kidney transplant patients >1 year post-transplant. Non-adherence was monitored electronically using MEMS(R). Selected socio-economic, therapy-, patient-, condition- and healthcare team-related risk factors for non-adherence were assessed. Period prevalences were expressed as the percent of prescribed doses taken (taking adherence), the percent of correctly dosed days (dosing adherence), the percentage of inter-dose intervals not exceeding 25% of the prescribed interval (timing adherence), and the number of drug holidays per 100 days (no intake for > 48 h if once daily or for > 24 h if twice daily intake). Testing occurred by simple mixed logistic regression analysis. Factors significant after correction for multiple testing were entered into a multiple logistic regression model. Mean taking, dosing, timing adherence, and drug holidays were 98%, 96%, 93%, and 1.1 days, respectively. Non-adherence was associated with lower self-efficacy, higher self-reported non-adherence, no pillbox usage, and male gender. Adherence declined between Monday and Sunday. This study provides a framework for identifying patients at risk for non-adherence and for developing adherence-enhancing interventions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2006.01611.x

Cites

3 of 3 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
Denhaerynck, K., Steiger, J., Bock, A., Schäfer-Keller, P., Köfer, S., Thannberger, N., & De Geest, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Basel (CH)
  • University Hospital of Basel (CH)
  • Kantonsspital Aarau (CH)
Venue
American Journal of Transplantation
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2007-01
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
108-116
ISSN
1600-6135 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2050261089
Cited by
184
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 12
FWCI
5.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Transplantation (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Medication Adherence and Compliance
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Transplantation › Renal Transplantation Outcomes and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Nephrology › Dialysis and Renal Disease Management
Keywords
medication non-adherence, immunosuppressive therapy, kidney transplantation, risk factors, electronic medication monitoring, MEMS, self-efficacy, drug holidays, dosing adherence, male sex, socioeconomic factors
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Female, Humans, Immunosuppressive Agents, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Compliance, Prospective Studies, Risk Factors, Sex Factors, Prevalence, Logistic Models, Kidney Transplantation, Treatment Refusal, 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