| Title |
Improving medication adherence among community-dwelling seniors with cognitive impairment: a systematic review of interventions
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy, May 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11096-017-0487-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Edeltraut Kröger, Ovidiu Tatar, Isabelle Vedel, Anik M. C. Giguère, Philippe Voyer, Laurence Guillaumie, Jean-Pierre Grégoire, Line Guénette |
| Abstract |
Background Medication non-adherence may lead to poor therapeutic outcomes. Cognitive functions deteriorate with age, contributing to decreased adherence. Interventions have been tested to improve adherence in seniors with cognitive impairment or Alzheimer disease (AD), but high-quality systematic reviews are lacking. It remains unclear which interventions are promising. Objectives We conducted a systematic review to identify, describe, and evaluate interventions aimed at improving medication adherence among seniors with any type of cognitive impairment. Methods Following NICE guidance, databases and websites were searched using combinations of controlled and free vocabulary. All adherence-enhancing interventions and study designs were considered. Studies had to include community dwelling seniors, aged 65 years or older, with cognitive impairment, receiving at least one medication for a chronic condition, and an adherence measure. Study characteristics and methodological quality were assessed. Results We identified 13 interventions, including six RCTs. Two studies were of poor, nine of low/medium and two of high quality. Seven studies had sample sizes below 50 and six interventions focused on adherence to AD medication. Six interventions tested a behavioral, four a medication oriented, two an educational and one a multi-faceted approach. Studies rarely assessed therapeutic outcomes. All but one intervention showed improved adherence. Conclusion Three medium quality studies showed better adherence with patches than with pills for AD treatment. Promising interventions used educational or reminding strategies, including one high quality RCT. Nine studies were of low/moderate quality. High quality RCTs using a theoretical framework for intervention selection are needed to identify strategies for improved adherence in these seniors. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 112 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 112 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 6% |
| Researcher | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 31 | 28% |
| Unknown | 30 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 26 | 23% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 12 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 10% |
| Psychology | 8 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 12 | 11% |
| Unknown | 37 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 June 2017.
All research outputs
#4,214,277
of 22,977,819 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
#204
of 1,100 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,601
of 314,113 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
#6
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,977,819 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,100 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 314,113 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.