Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27313448›Full record

ReviewPatient preference and adherence2016

How payment scheme affects patients' adherence to medications? A systematic review.

Hamiza Aziz, Ernieda Hatah, Mohd Makmor Bakry, Farida Islahudin

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review 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 20 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. How to make value-based health insurance designs more effective? A systematic review and meta-analysis.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2019
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. A comparison of medication adherence between subsidized and self-paying patients in Malaysia.Malaysian family physician : the official journal of the Academy of Family Physicians of Malaysia · 2018
    Article
  19. Examining Factors Associated With Nonadherence And Identifying Providers Caring For Nonadherent Subgroups.Journal of pharmaceutical health services research : an official journal of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain · 2017
    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

4 authors.

Hamiza AzizFaculty of Pharmacy, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Jalan Raja Muda Abdul Aziz, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; Pharmacy Division, Ministry of Health, Jalan Universiti, Petaling Jaya, Malaysia.
Ernieda HatahFaculty of Pharmacy, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Jalan Raja Muda Abdul Aziz, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Mohd Makmor BakryFaculty of Pharmacy, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Jalan Raja Muda Abdul Aziz, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Farida IslahudinFaculty of Pharmacy, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Jalan Raja Muda Abdul Aziz, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA previous systematic review reported that increase in patients' medication cost-sharing reduced patients' adherence to medication. However, a study among patients with medication subsidies who received medication at no cost found that medication nonadherence was also high. To our knowledge, no study has evaluated the influence of different medication payment schemes on patients' medication adherence.

objectiveThis study aims to review research reporting the influence of payment schemes and their association with patients' medication adherence behavior.

methodsThis study was conducted using systematic review of published articles. Relevant published articles were located through three electronic databases Medline, ProQuest Medical Library, and ScienceDirect since inception to February 2015. Included articles were then reviewed and summarized narratively.

resultsOf the total of 2,683 articles located, 21 were included in the final analysis. There were four types of medication payment schemes reported in the included studies: 1) out-of-pocket expenditure or copayments; 2) drug coverage or insurance benefit; 3) prescription cap; and 4) medication subsidies. Our review found that patients with "lower self-paying constraint" were more likely to adhere to their medication (adherence rate ranged between 28.5% and 94.3%). Surprisingly, the adherence rate among patients who received medication as fully subsidized was similar (rate between 34% and 84.6%) as that of other payment schemes. The studies that evaluated patients with fully subsidized payment scheme found that the medication adherence was poor among patients with nonsevere illness.

conclusionAlthough medication adherence was improved with the reduction of cost-sharing such as lower copayment, higher drug coverage, and prescription cap, patients with full-medication subsidies payment scheme (received medication at no cost) were also found to have poor adherence to their medication. Future studies comparing factors that may influence patients' adherence to medication among patients who received medication subsidies should be done to develop strategies to overcome medication nonadherence.

Indexed as

drug costmedication adherencemedication payment scheme

Identifiers

PMID27313448
PMCPMC4874730

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.