Cited by 74Medication Adherence and ComplianceCancer survivorship and careBreast Cancer Treatment Studies

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Interventions to Promote Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy Adherence Among Breast Cancer Survivors

Open access
Bright, Emma E., Finkelstein, Lauren B., Nealis, Madeline S., Genung, Sarah R., Wrigley, Jordan, Gu, Heng Chao J., Schmiege, Sarah J., Arch, Joanna J.·2023·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

PURPOSE: Adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) adherence among breast cancer survivors is often suboptimal, leading to higher cancer recurrence and mortality. Intervention studies to promote AET adherence have burgeoned, more than doubling in number since this literature was last reviewed. The current aim is to provide an up-to-date systematic review and meta-analysis of interventions to enhance AET adherence and to identify strengths and limitations of existing interventions to inform future research and clinical care. METHODS: Systematic searches were conducted in three electronic databases. Studies were included in the systematic review if they examined an intervention for promoting AET adherence among breast cancer survivors. Studies were further included in the meta-analyses if they examined a measure of AET adherence (defined as compliance or persistence beyond initiation) and reported (or provided upon request) sufficient information to calculate an effect size. RESULTS: Of 5,045 unique records, 33 unique studies representing 375,951 women met inclusion criteria for the systematic review. Interventions that educated patients about how to manage side effects generally failed to improve AET adherence, whereas policy changes that lowered AET costs consistently improved adherence. Medication reminders, communication, and psychological/coping strategies showed varied efficacy. Of the 33 studies that met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review, 25 studies representing 367,873 women met inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis showed statistically significant effects of the adherence interventions overall relative to study-specified control conditions (number of studies [k] = 25; odds ratio, 1.412; 95% CI, 1.183 to 1.682; P = .0001). Subgroup analyses showed that there were no statistically significant differences in effect sizes by study design (randomized controlled trial v other), publication year, directionality of the intervention (unidirectional v bidirectional contact), or intervention type. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the first known meta-analysis to demonstrate a significant effect for interventions to promote AET adherence. The systematic review revealed that lowering medication costs and a subgroup of psychosocial and reminder interventions showed the most promise, informing future research, policy, and clinical directions.

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 · 10.1200/jco.23.00697

Cites

69 of 69 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Higgins JPT, Savović J, Page MJ, et al: Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in a randomized trial, in Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al (eds): Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Intervention (ed 6.3). London, United Kingdom, Cochrane, 2022, pp 205-228

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bright, E. E., Finkelstein, L. B., Nealis, M. S., Genung, S. R., Wrigley, J., Gu, H. C. J., Schmiege, S. J., & Arch, J. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Colorado Boulder (US)
  • Colorado School of Public Health (US)
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2023-10-01
Volume
41
Issue
28
Pages
4548-4561
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W4385488031
Cited by
74
References
69
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 1
FWCI
3.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Oncology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Comprehensive Cancer Network
  • Genentech
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Medication Adherence and Compliance
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Breast Cancer Treatment Studies
Keywords
adjuvant endocrine therapy, medication adherence, breast cancer survivors, adherence interventions, drug cost reduction, medication reminders, psychosocial interventions, coping strategies, patient education, side effect management, treatment persistence
MeSH terms
Cancer Survivors, Adaptation, Psychological, Breast Neoplasms, Female, Humans, Chemotherapy, Adjuvant, Medication Adherence

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