ArticlePatient preference and adherence2016
Concordance between two methods in measuring treatment adherence in patients with type 2 diabetes.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Adherence to oral antineoplastic therapy among patients with advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: a noninterventional, prospective study.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2025Observational
- Sense of Coherence and Adherence to Self-Care in People with Diabetes: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2025Review
- Adherence to Oral Antidiabetic Drugs in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Effectiveness of therapeutic patient education on diabetes in prison.Revista espanola de sanidad penitenciariaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWe analyzed the concordance between two methods for measuring treatment adherence (TA) and studied the determinants of TA in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.
methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional descriptive study in a primary care center, involving 320 diabetic patients. TA was measured using the Haynes-Sackett (H-S) adherence test during the patient interview and based on pharmacy refill data. TA was calculated globally and by drug groups (antihypertensive, lipid-lowering, and antidiabetic drugs).
resultsPoor TA as measured by the H-S test was observed in 11.2% of the patients. Based on pharmacy refill data, there was a poor global TA rate of 30.3%, which was 33.3%, 26.6%, and 34.2% for oral antidiabetic, antihypertensive, and lipid-lowering drugs, respectively. Concordance between the two methods was poor. There was no relationship between the degree of disease control and TA as measured by the H-S test. Good TA measured based on pharmacy refill data for antidiabetic and antihypertensive drugs was associated with lower glycosylated hemoglobin and diastolic blood pressure values, respectively. Patients with good global TA showed lower glycosylated hemoglobin, diastolic blood pressure, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol values. The multivariate analysis found good oral antidiabetic adherence to be associated to free pharmacy service; good antihypertensive drug adherence to the existence of comorbidities; and good lipid-lowering drug adherence to a history of ischemic heart disease, and a more experienced physician and/or female physician.
conclusionConcordance between the two methods in assessing TA was low. Approximately one-third of the patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus presented poor TA in relation to antihypertensive, lipid-lowering, and antidiabetic medication. An improved TA was associated with a better control of the studied parameters. Comorbidities, such as ischemic heart disease and access to free pharmacy service, were identified as determinants of good TA.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.