Cited by 47Medication Adherence and CompliancePharmacy and Medical PracticesPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes

Effect of electronic adherence monitoring on adherence and outcomes in chronic conditions: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Chan, Amy Hai Yan, Foot, Holly, Pearce, Christina Joanne, Horne, Rob, Foster, Juliet Michelle, Harrison, Jeff·2022·PLOS ONE

Abstract

Introduction: Electronic adherence monitoring (EAM) is increasingly used to improve adherence. However, there is limited evidence on the effect of EAM in across chronic conditions and on patient acceptability. We aimed to assess the effect of EAM on adherence and clinical outcomes, across all ages and all chronic conditions, and examine acceptability in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: A systematic search of Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Social Work Abstracts, PsycINFO, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts and CINAHL databases was performed from database inception to December 31, 2020. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effect of EAM on medication adherence as part of an adherence intervention in chronic conditions were included. Study characteristics, differences in adherence and clinical outcomes between intervention and control were extracted from each study. Estimates were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis, and presented as mean differences, standardised mean differences (SMD) or risk ratios depending on the data. Differences by study-level characteristics were estimated using subgroup meta-analysis to identify intervention characteristics associated with improved adherence. Effects on adherence and clinical outcomes which could not be meta-analysed, and patient acceptability, were synthesised narratively. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guideline was followed, and Risk of bias (RoB) assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s RoB tool for RCTs. The review is registered with PROSPERO CRD42017084231. Findings: Our search identified 365 studies, of which 47 studies involving 6194 patients were included. Data from 27 studies (n = 2584) were extracted for the adherence outcome. The intervention group (n = 1267) had significantly better adherence compared to control (n = 1317), (SMD = 0.93, CI:0.69 to 1.17, p<0.0001) with high heterogeneity across studies (I 2= 86%). There was a significant difference in effect according to intervention complexity (p = 0.01); EAM only improved adherence when used with a reminder and/or health provider support. Clinical outcomes were measured in 38/47 (81%) of studies; of these data from 14 studies were included in a meta-analysis of clinical outcomes for HIV, hypertension and asthma. In total, 13/47 (28%) studies assessed acceptability; patient perceptions were mixed. Interpretation: Patients receiving an EAM intervention had significantly better adherence than those who did not, but improved adherence did not consistently translate into clinical benefits. Acceptability data were mixed. Further research measuring effects on clinical outcomes and patient acceptability are needed.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0265715

Cites

79 of 80 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?

  • Implementing personalized care strategies-such as tailored feedback, reminders, and incentives-can significantly boost patient engagement.

    “Studies have shown that implementing personalized care strategies—such as tailored feedback, reminders, and incentives—can significantly boost patient engagement.30,33,34”

    From Program cost and return on investment analysis of remote patient monitoring for hypertension management in the cardiology department of a large healthcare system (2026) · cites this paper as [34]

    The Results (Effect of EAM on medication adherence; page not available) report significantly better medication adherence with electronic-monitoring interventions, and the patient-acceptability Results report positive responses to feedback and adherence discussions. The paper also describes customizable reminders and an incentive-based intervention, but it does not establish that these strategies significantly boost patient engagement; its measured outcome is chiefly medication adherence. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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: 11

  1. [24]Hedges LV, Olkin I. Statistical methods for meta-analysis. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. San Diego, CA: Academic Press; 1985.
  2. [25]Review Manager (RevMan). Review Manager (RevMan). 5.4 ed: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2020.
  3. [72]Rosen MI, Dieckhaus K, McMahon TJ, Valdes B, Petry NM, Cramer J, et al. Improved adherence with contingency management. AIDS Patient Care and STDS. 2007; 21(1): 30– 40. doi: 10.1089/apc.2006.0028 17263651 · DOI
  4. [73]Sabin LL, DeSilva MB, Hamer DH, Xu K, Zhang J, Li T, et al. Using electronic drug monitor feedback to improve adherence to antiretroviral therapy among HIV-positive patients in China. AIDS and Behavior. 2010; 14(3): 580– 9. doi: 10.1007/s10461-009-9615-1 19771504 PMC2865631 · DOI
  5. [74]Smith SR, Rublein JC, Marcus C, Brock TP, Chesney MA. A medication self-management program to improve adherence to HIV therapy regimens. Patient Educ Couns. 2003; 50(2): 187– 99. doi: 10.1016/s0738-3991(02)00127-1 12781934 · DOI · Paper page
  6. [75]Erickson SR, Ascione FJ, Kirking DM. Utility of electronic device for medication management in patients with hypertension: a pilot study. Journal of the American Pharmaceutical Association. 2005; 45(1): 88– 91. doi: 10.1331/1544345052843084 15730122 · DOI
  7. [76]McKenney JM, Munroe WP, Wright JT Jr, Impact of an electronic medication compliance aid on long-term blood pressure control. Journal of Clinical Pharmacology. 1992; 32(3): 277– 83. doi: 10.1002/j.1552-4604.1992.tb03837.x 1564133 · DOI
  8. [77]van Onzenoort HA, Verberk WJ, Kroon AA, Kessels AG, Neef C, van der Kuy PH, et al. Electronic monitoring of adherence, treatment of hypertension, and blood pressure control. American Journal of Hypertension. 2012; 25(1): 54– 9. doi: 10.1038/ajh.2011.153 21993365 · DOI
  9. [78]Duncan CL, Hogan MB, Tien KJ, Graves MM, Chorney JM, Zettler MD, et al. Efficacy of a parent-youth teamwork intervention to promote adherence in pediatric asthma. Journal of Pediatric Psychology. 2013; 38(6): 617– 28. doi: 10.1093/jpepsy/jss123 23248342 PMC3701124 · DOI
  10. [79]Foster JM, Usherwood T, Smith L, Sawyer SM, Xuan W, Rand CS, et al. Inhaler reminders improve adherence with controller treatment in primary care patients with asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2014; 134: 1260– 68. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2014.05.041 25062783 · DOI
  11. [84]Checchi KD, Huybrechts KF, Avorn J, Kesselheim AS. Electronic medication packaging devices and medication adherence: a systematic review. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association. 2014; 312(12): 1237– 47. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.10059 25247520 PMC4209732 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chan, A. H. Y., Foot, H., Pearce, C. J., Horne, R., Foster, J. M., & Harrison, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Auckland (NZ)
  • UCL School of Pharmacy (GB)
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
Chan, Amy Hai Yan
Venue
PLOS ONE
Published
2022-03-21
Volume
17
Issue
3
Pages
e0265715
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4220896664
Cited by
47
References
79
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 6
FWCI
2.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • ResearchSpace (University of Auckland) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Amgen
  • Pfizer
  • GlaxoSmithKline
  • Gilead Sciences
  • Biogen
  • Auckland District Health Board
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research
  • Asthma and Lung UK
  • British Psychological Society
  • Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust
  • Cilag
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Medication Adherence and Compliance
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmacy and Medical Practices
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Pharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Keywords
electronic adherence monitoring, medication adherence, chronic disease, patient acceptability, adherence interventions, reminders, HIV, hypertension, asthma, clinical outcomes, intervention complexity, patient empowerment, patient satisfaction, patient education, patient engagement
MeSH terms
Asthma, Chronic Disease, Electronics, Humans, Bias, 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