ArticlePatient preference and adherence2020
Optimization of Electronically Monitored Non-Adherence in Highly Adherent Renal Transplant Recipients by Reducing the Dosing Frequency - A Prospective Single-Center Observational Study.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNon-adherence (NA) after renal transplantation poses a major risk for allograft rejection, graft loss, and patient mortality. Yet, there is still ambiguity about its etiology and its possible relationships with patient-related factors. In order to prevent poor outcomes after transplantation, it is crucial to gain a more refined understanding of potential determinants, to identify patients at risk, and to intervene accordingly. The objective of this study was to assess potential risk factors of NA by prospectively applying electronic monitoring. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis was a single-center prospective observational study. Prior to study initiation, sociodemographic, biomedical, and psychosocial variables (depression, health-related quality of life, self-efficacy, social support, attachment, experiences and attitudes towards immunosuppressive medication, emotional responses after organ transplantation, satisfaction with information about immunosuppressive medication, and perceptions and beliefs about medications) were assessed. Thereafter, immunosuppressive adherence behavior was measured prospectively via electronic monitoring (EM, VAICA©) during a 3-month period to receive the percentage frequency of Taking and Timing Adherence (±2h, ±30min) for each patient. Focus of this study was the phase of medication implementation.
resultsA total of 78 patients participated in our study (mean age 55.28, 56% male). We found rates of 99.39% for Taking Adherence, 98.34% for Timing Adherence ±2h, and 93.34% for Timing Adherence ±30min, respectively. Multiple regression analyses revealed that the type of medication could significantly predict Taking Adherence. Patients receiving Advagraf© (once daily) depicted better Taking Adherence than patients receiving Prograf© (twice daily) (p=0.04). No associations were found for Timing Adherence (±2h, ±30min). Sociodemographic, biomedical, or psychosocial variables were not found to be associated with adherence behavior. DISCUSSION: In highly adherent populations, only a few factors can be altered to improve adherence. Changing the immunosuppressive regimen from twice-daily to once-daily could be an option for optimizing adherence. However, risk factors for NA could be different in a less adherent population.
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.