Observational studyRevista espanola de salud publica2019
[Evaluation of satisfaction with pharmacological treatment in people with hypertension].
Observational study in Revista espanola de salud publica, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring the impact of three-dimensional patient satisfaction structure on adherence to medication and non-pharmaceutical treatment: a cross-sectional study among patients with hypertension in rural China.BMC primary care · 2025Article
- The Lübeck Medication Satisfaction Questionnaire-A Novel Measurement Tool for Therapy Satisfaction.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Reliability and Validity of the Treatment Satisfaction with Medicines Questionnaire (SATMED-Q) in Persons with Arterial Hypertension.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Therapeutic Compliance of Patients with Arterial Hypertension in Primary Care.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveMedication satisfaction is a patientcentered measure that helps predict the continuity of treatment, correct use and therapeutic compliance. The objective has been to evaluate the satisfaction with the treatment (ST) of subjects with arterial hypertension (HT) and find out if the type of treatment, the state of health and the personal characteristics are related to the satisfaction.
methodsObservational cross-sectional study conducted in the community pharmacy field. A total of 484 users of antihypertensive medication were evaluated (response rate: 81.6%). The ST was evaluated through the Treatment Satisfaction with Medicines. In the statistical analysis, means comparison and correlation tests were used to verify the existence of associations between the ST level and the different variables, considering a significance level of p<0.05. Likewise, a multiple linear regression model was constructed to identify the associated variables avoiding possible confounding factors.
resultsIn a range of 0-100 the mean ST value was 79.9 (SD=12.9, 95% CI=78.8-81.0). A weak correlation was observed between perceived health score and ST (r=0.145, p=0.001). ST was higher in subjects with controlled BP (82.1 ±12.1 SD vs 77.5 ±13.3 SD, p<0.001), in treated subjects over 5 years (83.5 ± 12.8 SD vs 78.5 ±12.6 SD; p<0.001), in subjects without adverse effects (82.5 ±11.6 SD vs 68.7 ±11.9 SD; p<0.001) and in lower social classes (81.2 ±12.8 SD vs 78.5 ±12.8 SD, p=0.02). It was lower in the non-compliers with the treatment (73.2 ±12.9 vs 82.1 ±12.1, p<0.001).
conclusionsThe ST level is acceptable, despite insufficient BP control and the high rate of noncompliance. Satisfaction is conditioned both by effectiveness and by therapeutic adherence, although health status, treatment and personal characteristics also intervene.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31662582PMC11582878What 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.