Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27701902›Full record

Trial reportPsychology & health2017

Motivational interviewing or reminders for glaucoma medication adherence: Results of a multi-site randomised controlled trial.

Paul F Cook, Sarah J Schmiege, Steven L Mansberger, Christina Sheppler, Jeffrey Kammer, Timothy Fitzgerald, Malik Y Kahook

Open access · greenAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Psychology & health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Psychological interventions to reduce intraocular pressure (IOP) in glaucoma patients: a review.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2023
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Paul F Cooka College of Nursing , University of Colorado , Aurora , CO , USA.
Sarah J Schmiegea College of Nursing , University of Colorado , Aurora , CO , USA.
Steven L Mansbergerb Devers Eye Institute, Legacy Health , Portland , OR , USA.
Christina Shepplerb Devers Eye Institute, Legacy Health , Portland , OR , USA.
Jeffrey Kammerc Vanderbilt Eye Institute , Vanderbilt University , Nashville , TN , USA.
Timothy Fitzgeraldd Global Health Outcomes , Merck & Co. Inc. , White Horse Station , NJ , USA.
Malik Y Kahooke School of Medicine , University of Colorado , Aurora , CO , USA.
Legacy Health · USUniversity of Colorado Denver · USUniversity of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus · USVanderbilt University · US

Funding

CTSA INFRASTRUCTURE FOR PEDIATRIC RESEARCHUL1RR025780 · NCRR · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI SOKOL, RONALD J. · 2008 to 2011
$61.3M
NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR025780
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveNonadherence reduces glaucoma treatment efficacy. Motivational interviewing (MI) is a well-studied adherence intervention, but has not been tested in glaucoma. Reminder interventions also may improve adherence.

design201 patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension were urn-randomised to receive MI delivered by an ophthalmic technician (OT), usual care or a minimal behavioural intervention (reminder calls).

main outcome measuresOutcomes included electronic monitoring with Medication Event Monitoring System (MEMS) bottles, two self-report adherence measures, patient satisfaction and clinical outcomes. Multilevel modelling was used to test differences in MEMS results by group over time; ANCOVA was used to compare groups on other measures.

resultsReminder calls increased adherence compared to usual care based on MEMS, p = .005, and self-report, p = .04. MI had a nonsignificant effect but produced higher satisfaction than reminder calls, p = .007. Treatment fidelity was high on most measures, with observable differences in behaviour between groups. All groups had high baseline adherence that limited opportunities for change.

conclusionReminder calls, but not MI, led to better adherence than usual care. Although a large literature supports MI, reminder calls might be a cost-effective intervention for patients with high baseline adherence. Replication is needed with less adherent participants.

Indexed as

Drug MonitoringMotivational InterviewingReminder SystemsAgedBehavior TherapyFemaleGlaucomaHumansMaleMedication AdherenceMiddle AgedPatient SatisfactionSelf ReportTreatment Outcomeadherenceglaucomamotivational interviewingremindertreatment satisfaction

Identifiers

PMID27701902
PMCPMC5560586
OpenAlexW2538044789

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.