↓ Skip to main content

Providing physicians with feedback on medication adherence for people with chronic diseases taking long-term medication

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
35 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
112 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Providing physicians with feedback on medication adherence for people with chronic diseases taking long-term medication
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012042.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vincent Zaugg, Virginie Korb-Savoldelli, Pierre Durieux, Brigitte Sabatier

Abstract

Poor medication adherence decreases treatment efficacy and worsens clinical outcomes, but average rates of adherence to long-term pharmacological treatments for chronic illnesses are only about 50%. Interventions for improving medication adherence largely focus on patients rather than on physicians; however, the strategies shown to be effective are complex and difficult to implement in clinical practice. There is a need for new care models addressing the problem of medication adherence, integrating this problem into the patient care process. Physicians tend to overestimate how well patients take their medication as prescribed. This can lead to missed opportunities to change medications, solve adverse effects, or propose the use of reminders in order to improve patients' adherence. Thus, providing physicians with feedback on medication adherence has the potential to prompt changes that improve their patients' adherence to prescribed medications. To assess the effects of providing physicians with feedback about their patients' medication adherence for improving adherence. We also assessed the effects of the intervention on patient outcomes, health resource use, and processes of care. We conducted a systematic search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase, all from database inception to December 2016 and without any language restriction. We also searched ISI Web of Science, two trials registers, and grey literature. We included randomised trials, controlled before-after studies, and interrupted time series studies that compared the effects of providing feedback to physicians about their patients' adherence to prescribed long-term medications for chronic diseases versus usual care. We included published or unpublished studies in any language. Participants included any physician and any patient prescribed with long-term medication for chronic disease. We included interventions providing the prescribing physician with information about patient adherence to medication. Only studies in which feedback to the physician was the sole intervention or the essential component of a multifaceted intervention were eligible. In the comparison groups, the physicians should not have had access to information about their patients' adherence to medication. We considered the following outcomes: medication adherence, patient outcomes, health resource use, processes of care, and adverse events. Two independent review authors extracted and analysed all data using standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care group. Due to heterogeneity in study methodology, comparison groups, intervention settings, and measurements of outcomes, we did not carry out meta-analysis. We describe the impact of interventions on outcomes in tabular form and make a qualitative assessment of the effects of studies. We included nine studies (23,255 patient participants): eight randomised trials and one interrupted time series analysis. The studies took place in primary care and other outpatient settings in the USA and Canada. Seven interventions involved the systematic provision of feedback to physicians concerning all their patients' adherence to medication, and two interventions involved issuing an alert for non-adherent patients only. Seven studies used pharmacy refill data to assess medication adherence, and two used an electronic device or self-reporting. The definition of adherence differed across studies, making comparisons difficult. Eight studies were at high risk of bias, and one study was at unclear risk of bias. The most frequent source of bias was lack of protection against contamination.Providing physicians with feedback may lead to little or no difference in medication adherence (seven studies, 22,924 patients), patient outcomes (two studies, 1292 patients), or health resource use (two studies, 4181 patients). Providing physicians with feedback on medication adherence may improve processes of care (e.g. more medication changes, dialogue with patient, management of uncontrolled hypertension) compared to usual care (four studies, 2780 patients). None of the studies reported an adverse event due to the intervention. The certainty of evidence was low for all outcomes, mainly due to high risk of bias, high heterogeneity across studies, and indirectness of evidence. Across nine studies, we observed little or no evidence that provision of feedback to physicians regarding their patients adherence to prescribed medication improved medication adherence, patient outcomes, or health resource use. Feedback about medication adherence may improve processes of care, but due to the small number of studies assessing this outcome and high risk of bias, we cannot draw firm conclusions on the effect of feedback on this outcome. Future research should use a clear, standardised definition of medication adherence and cluster-randomisation to avoid the risk of contamination.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 35 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

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 > Master 14 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 12%
Researcher 13 12%
Other 12 11%
Student > Bachelor 10 9%
Other 29 26%
Unknown 21 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 13%
Social Sciences 9 8%
Psychology 7 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 5%
Other 12 11%
Unknown 25 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 04 November 2019.
All research outputs
#911,141
of 14,417,400 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,723
of 10,965 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,652
of 398,987 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#72
of 205 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,417,400 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,965 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 398,987 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 205 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 64% of its contemporaries.