ReviewPatient preference and adherence2020
Moving the Dial on Heart Failure Patient Adherence Rates.
Review 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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Can Lp(a) become the next A1C? A case for digital health management tools to overcome inertia to Lipoprotein (a) testing.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
- Definition of Polypharmacy in Heart Failure: A Scoping Review of the Literature.Cardiology research · 2024Article
- Democratizing Global Health Care Through Scalable Emergent (Beyond the Mobile) Wireless Technologies.JMIR biomedical engineering · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionHeart failure remains a substantive contributor to patient morbidity and mortality rates worldwide and represents a significant burden on the healthcare ecosystem. Faced with persistent physical symptoms and debilitating social consequences, patients follow complex treatment regimens and often have difficulty adhering to them. PURPOSE: In this manuscript, we review factors which contribute to low adherence rates and advance potential single- and multi-factor-based interventions. It is hoped that these observations can lead to improvements in managed care of this vulnerable population of patients.
methodsA narrative review of the primary literature was performed on contributing factors with primary focus on the period 2015-2020 using available databases and search engines. Adherence pain points identified were mapped against a series of potential solutions which are presented.
resultsEnhancement of treatment adherence relies on two approaches viz. single-factor and multi-factor solutions. Single factors identified include electronic reminders, enhanced health education, financial incentives, gamification strategies, community drivers, persona-based modeling, and burden relief of poly pharmacy. Multi-factor solutions combine two or more of the seven approaches offering the potential for flexible interventions tailored to the individual. DISCUSSION AND
conclusionHeart failure patients with poor adherence have increased mortality, hospitalization needs, and healthcare costs. This review highlights current single-factor and multi-factor adherence methods. Against a backdrop of diversity of approaches, multi-factor solutions cast the widest net for positively influencing adherent behaviors. A key enabler lies in the development and leveraging of patient personas in the synthesis of successful intervention methods. Deployable solutions can also be envisioned in clinical trials where adherence tracking represents an essential component.
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.