CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 117Medication Adherence and ComplianceBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 24 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Physician assessments of medication adherence and decisions to intensify medications for patients with uncontrolled blood pressure: still no better than a coin toss

Open access
Meddings, Jennifer, Kerr, Eve A, Heisler, Michele, Hofer, Timothy P·2012·BMC Health Services Research
DOI 10.1186/1472-6963-12-270PMC PMC3570326
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Many patients have uncontrolled blood pressure (BP) because they are not taking medications as prescribed. Providers may have difficulty accurately assessing adherence. Providers need to assess medication adherence to decide whether to address uncontrolled BP by improving adherence to the current prescribed regimen or by intensifying the BP treatment regimen by increasing doses or adding more medications. METHODS: We examined how provider assessments of adherence with antihypertensive medications compared with refill records, and how providers' assessments were associated with decisions to intensify medications for uncontrolled BP. We studied a cross-sectional cohort of 1169 veterans with diabetes presenting with BP ≥140/90 to 92 primary care providers at 9 Veterans Affairs (VA) facilities from February 2005 to March 2006. Using VA pharmacy records, we utilized a continuous multiple-interval measure of medication gaps (CMG) to assess the proportion of time in prior year that patient did not possess the prescribed medications; CMG ≥20% is considered clinically significant non-adherence. Providers answered post-visit Likert-scale questions regarding their assessment of patient adherence to BP medications. The BP regimen was considered intensified if medication was added or increased without stopping or decreasing another medication. RESULTS: 1064 patients were receiving antihypertensive medication regularly from the VA; the mean CMG was 11.3%. Adherence assessments by providers correlated poorly with refill history. 211 (20%) patients did not have BP medication available for ≥ 20% of days; providers characterized 79 (37%) of these 211 patients as having significant non-adherence, and intensified medications for 97 (46%). Providers intensified BP medications for 451 (42%) patients, similarly whether assessed by provider as having significant non-adherence (44%) or not (43%). CONCLUSIONS: Providers recognized non-adherence for less than half of patients whose pharmacy records indicated significant refill gaps, and often intensified BP medications even when suspected serious non-adherence. Making an objective measure of adherence such as the CMG available during visits may help providers recognize non-adherence to inform prescribing decisions.

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 · 10.1186/1472-6963-12-270

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Study flow diagram.
Figure 1 Study flow diagram.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Provider Assessment of Adherence(Histogram).
Figure 2 Provider Assessment of Adherence(Histogram).CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Comparing Identification of Significant Non-adherence by Provider Assessment and Refill History (CMG= Continuous Multiple-interval Gap measure).
Figure 3 Comparing Identification of Significant Non-adherence by Provider Assessment and Refill History (CMG= Continuous Multiple-interval Gap measure).CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 Comparing Identification of Significant Non-adherence by Provider Assessment and Refill History (CMG= Continuous Multiple-interval Gap measure).Area A (circle outlined with solid border): 258 (24%) patients identified by provider as having significant non-adherence. Area B (circle outlined by dashed border): 211 (20%) patients identified by refill measure (CMG ≥20%) as having significant non-adherence. Area C (overlap of areas A and B): 79 (7%) patients identified as having significant non-adherence by both the provider assessment and refill measure (CMG). Area D (surrounding gray box): 674 patients without evidence of non-adherence by either provider assessment or refill measure (CMG), including 22 patients for whom the providers did not provide an adherence assessment by either post-visit question.
Figure 4 Comparing Identification of Significant Non-adherence by Provider Assessment and Refill History (CMG= Continuous Multiple-interval Gap measure).Area A (circle outlined with solid border): 258 (24%) patients identified by provider as having significant non-adherence. Area B (circle outlined by dashed border): 211 (20%) patients identified by refill measure (CMG ≥20%) as having significant non-adherence. Area C (overlap of areas A and B): 79 (7%) patients identified as having significant non-adherence by both the provider assessment and refill measure (CMG). Area D (surrounding gray box): 674 patients without evidence of non-adherence by either provider assessment or refill measure (CMG), including 22 patients for whom the providers did not provide an adherence assessment by either post-visit question.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 5 Example of Calculation of Refill Adherence Measure.
Figure 5 Example of Calculation of Refill Adherence Measure.CC BY · PubMed Central

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

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.

Citations

Cites

Show all 24 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Hogan MM, Heisler M, Kerr EA, Hofer TP: Harnessing the power of VA data for identifying medication adherence for hypertension. 2007, In VA Health Services Research and Development Meeting. Crystal City: VA

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 117

Related

Metadata

Authors
Meddings, J., Kerr, E. A., Heisler, M., & Hofer, T. P.
Affiliations
University of Michigan (US)
Corresponding author
Meddings, Jennifer
ORCID
Venue
BMC Health Services Research
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2012-08-21
Volume
12
Issue
1
Pages
270-270
ISSN
1472-6963 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/1472-6963-12-270
PMC
PMC3570326
OpenAlex
W2140341066
Cited by
117
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1
FWCI
1.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • BMC Health Services Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Deep Blue (University of Michigan) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
  • Health Services Research and Development
  • National Institutes of Health
  • Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (K08-HS1976701)
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (P60DK020572, P60 DK 20572, P30DK092926)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Medication Adherence and Compliance
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Blood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Atrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Keywords
medication adherence, uncontrolled hypertension, antihypertensive drugs, medication intensification, medication gaps, prescription refills
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Antihypertensive Agents, Cross-Sectional Studies, Decision Making, Humans, Hypertension, Middle Aged, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Physicians, Surveys and Questionnaires, Socioeconomic Factors, United States, 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