Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23724105›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2013

The effect of copayments for prescriptions on adherence to prescription medicines in publicly insured populations; a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Sarah-Jo Sinnott, Claire Buckley, David O'Riordan, Colin Bradley, Helen Whelton

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 59 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
59citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
7.1field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

59 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 124 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Differential Cost-Sharing Undermines Treatment Adherence to Combination Therapy: Evidence from Diabetes Treatment.Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders · 2021
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Sarah-Jo SinnottDepartment of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland. s.sinnott@ucc.ie
Claire Buckley
David O'Riordan
Colin Bradley
Helen Whelton
University College Cork · IE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionCopayments are intended to decrease third party expenditure on pharmaceuticals, particularly those regarded as less essential. However, copayments are associated with decreased use of all medicines. Publicly insured populations encompass some vulnerable patient groups such as older individuals and low income groups, who may be especially susceptible to medication non-adherence when required to pay. Non-adherence has potential consequences of increased morbidity and costs elsewhere in the system.

objectiveTo quantify the risk of non-adherence to prescribed medicines in publicly insured populations exposed to copayments.

methodsThe population of interest consisted of cohorts who received public health insurance. The intervention was the introduction of, or an increase, in copayment. The outcome was non-adherence to medications, evaluated using objective measures. Eight electronic databases and the grey literature were systematically searched for relevant articles, along with hand searches of references in review articles and the included studies. Studies were quality appraised using modified EPOC and EHPPH checklists. A random effects model was used to generate the meta-analysis in RevMan v5.1. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the I(2) test; p>0.1 indicated a lack of heterogeneity.

resultsSeven out of 41 studies met the inclusion criteria. Five studies contributed more than 1 result to the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis included 199,996 people overall; 74,236 people in the copayment group and 125,760 people in the non-copayment group. Average age was 71.75 years. In the copayment group, (verses the non-copayment group), the odds ratio for non-adherence was 1.11 (95% CI 1.09-1.14; P = <0.00001). An acceptable level of heterogeneity at I(2) = 7%, (p = 0.37) was observed.

conclusionThis meta-analysis showed an 11% increased odds of non-adherence to medicines in publicly insured populations where copayments for medicines are necessary. Policy-makers should be wary of potential negative clinical outcomes resulting from non-adherence, and also possible knock-on economic repercussions.

Indexed as

Insurance, HealthMedication AdherenceAgedAged, 80 and overAlgorithmsCohort StudiesDrug PrescriptionsFemaleHumansMalePrescription DrugsPublication BiasPublic HealthQuality Assurance, Health CarePrescription Drugs

Identifiers

PMID23724105
PMCPMC3665806
OpenAlexW2036514691

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.