Cited by 123Medication Adherence and ComplianceMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsHealth, Technology, Consumer Behavior

Effect of Interactive eHealth Interventions on Improving Medication Adherence in Adults With Long-Term Medication: Systematic Review

Open access
Pouls, Bart P H, Vriezekolk, Johanna E, Bekker, Charlotte L, Linn, Annemiek J, van Onzenoort, Hein A W, Vervloet, Marcia, van Dulmen, Sandra, van den Bemt, Bart J F·2021·Journal of Medical Internet Research

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Background: Medication nonadherence leads to suboptimal treatment outcomes, making it a major priority in health care. eHealth provides an opportunity to offer medication adherence interventions with minimal effort from health care providers whose time and resources are limited. Objective: The aim of this systematic review is twofold: (1) to evaluate effectiveness of recently developed and tested interactive eHealth (including mHealth) interventions on medication adherence in adult patients using long-term medication and (2) to describe strategies among effective interventions. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, and Web of Science were systematically searched from January 2014 to July 2019 as well as reference lists and citations of included articles. Eligible studies fulfilled the following inclusion criteria: (1) randomized controlled trial with a usual care control group; (2) a total sample size of at least 50 adult patients using long-term medication; (3) applying an interactive eHealth intervention aimed at the patient or patient’s caregiver; and (4) medication adherence as primary outcome. Methodologic quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Selection and quality assessment of studies were performed by 2 researchers (BP and BvdB or JV) independently. A best evidence synthesis was performed according to the Cochrane Back Review Group. Results: Of the 9047 records screened, 22 randomized clinical trials were included reporting on 29 interventions. Most (21/29, 72%) interventions specified using a (mobile) phone for calling, SMS text messaging, or mobile apps. A majority of all interactive interventions (17/29) had a statistically significant effect on medication adherence (P<.05). Of these interventions, 9 had at least a small effect size (Cohen d ≥ 0.2) and 3 showed strong odds for becoming adherent in the intervention group (odds ratio > 2.0). Our best evidence synthesis provided strong evidence for a positive effect of interventions using SMS text messages or interactive voice response, mobile app, and calls as mode of providing adherence tele-feedback. Intervention strategies “to teach medication management skills,” “to improve health care quality by coordinating medication adherence care between professionals,” and “to facilitate communication or decision making between patients and health care providers” also showed strong evidence for a positive effect. Conclusions: Overall, this review supports the hypothesis that interactive eHealth interventions can be effective in improving medication adherence. Intervention strategies that improve patients’ treatment involvement and their medication management skills are most promising and should be considered for implementation in practice.

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 · 10.2196/18901

Cites

53 of 53 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?

  • Healthcare technology innovations frequently remain confined to small-scale demonstration initiatives.

    “Healthcare technology innovations hold considerable promise for enhancing patient outcomes and service efficiency, but they frequently remain confined to small-scale demonstration initiatives [1–5].”

    From The NASSS (Non-Adoption, Abandonment, Scale-Up, Spread and Sustainability) framework use over time: A scoping review (2025) · cites this paper as [5]

    The Introduction describes eHealth as promising, and the Results summarize evaluated medication-adherence interventions, but neither addresses whether healthcare technologies frequently remain confined to small-scale demonstrations. Searches for pilot initiatives, scale-up, and routine implementation found no passage establishing that claim in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.73)

    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: 1

  1. [1]Christensen A Patient Adherence to Medical Treatment Regimens 2004 New Haven, CT Yale University Press

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pouls, B. P. H., Vriezekolk, J. E., Bekker, C. L., Linn, A. J., van Onzenoort, H. A. W., Vervloet, M., van Dulmen, S., & van den Bemt, B. J. F.
Affiliations
  • Radboud University Medical Center (NL)
  • Sint Maartenskliniek (NL)
  • University of Amsterdam (NL)
  • Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research (NL)
Corresponding author
Pouls, Bart P H
Venue
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Published
2021-01-08
Volume
23
Issue
1
Pages
e18901
ISSN
1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3118545579
Cited by
123
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 7
FWCI
4.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Internet Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Medication Adherence and Compliance
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Health, Technology, Consumer Behavior
Keywords
medication adherence, digital health interventions, mobile health, long-term medication, interactive voice response, safety management systems, mobile application, patient-provider communication, caregivers, intervention strategies, best evidence synthesis, risk of bias, quality of evidence, care coordination, patient decision-making
MeSH terms
Humans, Telemedicine, Risk Assessment, Medication Adherence, Mobile Applications

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