Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39073168›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2024

Pan-European survey on medication adherence management by healthcare professionals.

Maria Kamusheva, Emma Aarnio, Miriam Qvarnström, Gaye Hafez, Sara Mucherino, Ines Potočnjak, Indre Trečiokiene, Jovan Mihajlović, Marie Ekenberg, Job F M van Boven and 2 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. 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

12 authors.

Maria KamushevaFaculty of Pharmacy, Medical University of Sofia, Sofia, Bulgaria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4379-5283
Emma AarnioSchool of Pharmacy, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6555-7833
Miriam QvarnströmDepartment of Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Gaye HafezDepartment of Pharmacology, Faculty of Pharmacy, Altinbas University, Istanbul, Türkiye.
Sara MucherinoCIRFF, Department of Pharmacy, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, NA, Italy.
Ines PotočnjakSestre milosrdnice University Hospital Center, Zagreb, Croatia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9351-9669
Indre TrečiokieneFaculty of Medicine, Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania.
Jovan MihajlovićMihajlović Health Analytics, Novi Sad, Serbia.
Marie EkenbergDepartment of Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Job F M van BovenDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology, Medication Adherence Expertise Center of the Northern Netherlands (MAECON), University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.
Francisca Leiva-FernandezAndalusian Health Service-IBIMA-University of Malaga, Malaga, Spain.
European Network to Advance Best Practices and Technology on Medication AdherencE (ENABLE)

Funding

COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsWhile medication adherence (MA) is a key prerequisite for achieving optimal clinical and economic outcomes, nonadherence is highly prevalent. Assessing how healthcare professionals (HCPs) in Europe manage MA, focusing on measurement, reporting and interventions, is the subject of this study.

methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted among 40 European countries and quantitative analysis was conducted via an online survey. The multi-language online survey was created using Webropol 3.0 survey and reporting tool. Descriptive statistics and chi-squared tests were applied.

resultsIn total, 2875 HCPs (pharmacists: 39.9%; physicians: 36.7%; nurses: 16.4%) from 37 European countries participated. The most used methods for MA assessment were direct communication with patients (86.4%) and referring to personal patient records (56.7%) (P < 0.0001). Physicians (74.9%) and nurses (58.8%) were more aware of problems related to MA in contrast to pharmacists (48.6%) (P < 0.001). Almost all HCPs (92.6%) indicated that MA-enhancing interventions involved mainly direct communication with nonadherent patients (93.3%) and their caregivers (55.7%). Medication review and related optimization of therapy were mainly performed in Western European countries (46.8%). Technological solutions were ranked as one of the less applied approaches (10-15%) (P < 0.001).

conclusionsHCPs in all European regions recognize MA management as an integral element of overall patient-centred care. More efforts are needed to ensure timely, adequate and relevant MA assessment, reporting and improvement and involvement of all HCPs, especially among pharmacists who were generally less aware of MA issues. Promotion and use of digital technological solutions should be the focus of current and future clinical practice to optimize MA management processes.

Indexed as

Drug MonitoringAdultCommunicationCross-Sectional StudiesEuropeFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansMaleMiddle AgedNursesPharmacistsPhysiciansSurveys and QuestionnairesENABLEEuropehealthcare professionalsmedication adherence

Identifiers

PMID39073168
PMCPMC11602874

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.