Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorCutrona, Sarah L.
dc.contributor.authorChoudhry, Niteesh K.
dc.contributor.authorFischer, Michael A.
dc.contributor.authorServi, Amber
dc.contributor.authorStedman, Margaret R.
dc.contributor.authorLiberman, Joshua N.
dc.contributor.authorBrennan, Troyen
dc.contributor.authorShrank, William H.
dc.date2022-08-11T08:09:23.000
dc.date.accessioned2022-08-23T16:29:09Z
dc.date.available2022-08-23T16:29:09Z
dc.date.issued2012-05-01
dc.date.submitted2012-08-22
dc.identifier.citation<p>J Am Pharm Assoc (2003). 2012 May-Jun;52(3):381-97. DOI:10.1331/JAPhA.2012.10211</p>
dc.identifier.issn1544-3450
dc.identifier.doi10.1331/JAPhA.2012.10211
dc.identifier.pmid22618980
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14038/37180
dc.description.abstractOBJECTIVES: To determine whether adherence interventions should be administered to all medication takers or targeted to nonadherers. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: Systematic search (Medline and Embase, 1966-2009) of randomized controlled trials of interventions to improve adherence to medications for preventing or treating cardiovascular disease or diabetes. DATA EXTRACTION: Articles were classified as (1) broad interventions (targeted all medication takers), (2) focused interventions (targeted nonadherers), or (3) dynamic interventions (administered to all medication takers; real-time adherence information targets nonadherers as intervention proceeds). Cohen's d effect sizes were calculated. DATA SYNTHESIS: We identified 7,190 articles; 59 met inclusion criteria. Broad interventions were less likely (18%) to show medium or large effects compared with focused (25%) or dynamic (32%) interventions. Of the 33 dynamic interventions, 6 used externally generated adherence data to target nonadherers. Those with externally generated data were less likely to have a medium or large effect (20% vs. 34.8% self-generated data). CONCLUSION: Adherence interventions targeting nonadherers are heterogeneous but may have advantages over broad interventions. Dynamic interventions show promise and require further study.
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.relation<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=22618980&dopt=Abstract">Link to article in PubMed</a>
dc.relation.urlhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1331/JAPhA.2012.10211
dc.subjectMedication Adherence
dc.subjectHealth Services Research
dc.subjectPrimary Care
dc.titleTargeting cardiovascular medication adherence interventions
dc.typeJournal Article
dc.source.journaltitleJ Am Pharm Assoc (2003)
dc.source.volume52
dc.source.issue3
dc.identifier.legacycoverpagehttps://escholarship.umassmed.edu/meyers_pp/590
dc.identifier.contextkey3248051
html.description.abstract<p>OBJECTIVES: To determine whether adherence interventions should be administered to all medication takers or targeted to nonadherers.</p> <p>DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: Systematic search (Medline and Embase, 1966-2009) of randomized controlled trials of interventions to improve adherence to medications for preventing or treating cardiovascular disease or diabetes.</p> <p>DATA EXTRACTION: Articles were classified as (1) broad interventions (targeted all medication takers), (2) focused interventions (targeted nonadherers), or (3) dynamic interventions (administered to all medication takers; real-time adherence information targets nonadherers as intervention proceeds). Cohen's d effect sizes were calculated.</p> <p>DATA SYNTHESIS: We identified 7,190 articles; 59 met inclusion criteria. Broad interventions were less likely (18%) to show medium or large effects compared with focused (25%) or dynamic (32%) interventions. Of the 33 dynamic interventions, 6 used externally generated adherence data to target nonadherers. Those with externally generated data were less likely to have a medium or large effect (20% vs. 34.8% self-generated data).</p> <p>CONCLUSION: Adherence interventions targeting nonadherers are heterogeneous but may have advantages over broad interventions. Dynamic interventions show promise and require further study.</p>
dc.identifier.submissionpathmeyers_pp/590
dc.contributor.departmentMeyers Primary Care Institute
dc.contributor.departmentDepartment of Medicine
dc.source.pages381-97


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record