Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30678724›Full record

ArticleJournal of health, population, and nutrition2019

Comparison of medication adherence between type 2 diabetes mellitus patients who pay for their medications and those who receive it free: a rural Asian experience.

Devarajan Rathish, Ruvini Hemachandra, Thilini Premadasa, Sasini Ramanayake, Chathuri Rasangika, Ravi Roshiban, Channa Jayasumana

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of health, population, and nutrition, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Insulin Adherence in Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus.Indian journal of endocrinology and metabolism
    Review
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.

Devarajan RathishDepartment of Pharmacology, Faculty of Medicine and Allied Sciences, Rajarata University of Sri Lanka, Saliyapura, Sri Lanka. rathishdeva@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3346-4410
Ruvini HemachandraDepartment of Pharmacology, Faculty of Medicine and Allied Sciences, Rajarata University of Sri Lanka, Saliyapura, Sri Lanka.
Thilini PremadasaDepartment of Pharmacology, Faculty of Medicine and Allied Sciences, Rajarata University of Sri Lanka, Saliyapura, Sri Lanka.
Sasini RamanayakeDepartment of Pharmacology, Faculty of Medicine and Allied Sciences, Rajarata University of Sri Lanka, Saliyapura, Sri Lanka.
Chathuri RasangikaDepartment of Pharmacology, Faculty of Medicine and Allied Sciences, Rajarata University of Sri Lanka, Saliyapura, Sri Lanka.
Ravi RoshibanDepartment of Pharmacology, Faculty of Medicine and Allied Sciences, Rajarata University of Sri Lanka, Saliyapura, Sri Lanka.
Channa JayasumanaDepartment of Pharmacology, Faculty of Medicine and Allied Sciences, Rajarata University of Sri Lanka, Saliyapura, Sri Lanka.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTreatment plans fail if patients have poor medication adherence. Our aim was to compare medication adherence, reasons for non-adherence, and satisfaction with community support among type 2 diabetes mellitus patients who pay for their medications and those who receive it free.

methodsA descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted at Anuradhapura, Sri Lanka, among patients who were on oral anti-diabetic drugs for at least 3 months. They were grouped into two: universal-free group and fee-paying group. Three different scales were used to score medication adherence, reasons for non-adherence, and satisfaction with community support. Fisher's exact test was performed to determine if there was a significant difference between the two groups (p < 0.05) concerning medication adherence and satisfaction with community support.

resultsThe median (IQR) medication adherence scores for fee-paying group and universal-free group were 3 (2-3) and 3 (3-3), respectively; the median (IQR) scores for satisfaction with community support were 5 (2-6) and 4 (4-6), respectively. Both the adherence and the satisfaction failed to show a significant difference between the two groups. Forgetfulness, being away from home, complex drug regime, and willingness to avoid side effects were common reasons of non-adherence for both the groups.

conclusionsThere was no significant difference in medication adherence between the universal-free group and fee-paying group, despite of having a significantly different income. The universal-free health service would be a probable reason.

Indexed as

Drug MonitoringUniversal Health CareAdultAgedCross-Sectional StudiesDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2Fee-for-Service PlansFemaleHumansMaleMedication AdherenceMiddle AgedPatient SatisfactionRural PopulationSocial SupportSri LankaCommunity supportDiabetes mellitusNon-adherenceRural sectorSri LankaUniversal-free

Identifiers

PMID30678724
PMCPMC6346564

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.