ArticlePloS one2025
Medication adherence scales in non-communicable diseases: A scoping review of design gaps, constructs and validation processes.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Intermittent time-restricted feeding recapitulates the physiological benefits of daily time-restricted feeding in male mice with chronic metabolic disease.Molecular metabolism · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionNCDs arise from complex interactions of modifiable factors such as unhealthy lifestyles, poor diet, and psychosocial challenges, along with non-modifiable factors like age and genetics. Notably, medication non-adherence is a widespread and growing concern, significantly contributing to disease progression and poor outcomes globally.
objectiveThis scoping review aims to synthesize evidence on medication adherence scales used for selected non communicable diseases. It examines their development methods, psychometric properties, and assessed domains, while identifying gaps or limitations in their design and application. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe Joanna Briggs Institute methodological framework guided this scoping review and the protocol was registered prospectively to ensure methodological transparency and rigor. Electronic databases, the reference list of included articles, and grey literature were searched. Studies published in English from January 1950 to June 2024 were included. Two reviewers independently screened all articles, and a third reviewer settled any conflicts between the reviewers. Critical appraisal of the screened-in articles was done using JBI critical appraisal scales. The data was compiled into tables and a narrative summary that is consistent with the review's goal.
resultsOur study included 140 articles, identifying 57 medication adherence scales. These scales, developed using qualitative methods (10.8%), literature review (32.4%), and mixed methods (45.9%), primarily focus on behavior, often neglecting cost-related non-adherence, self-efficacy, and systemic barriers. Psychometric findings varied widely, reflecting heterogeneity in study designs and scale development approaches. Many scales lack validation in diverse settings, underscoring the need for comprehensive, context-sensitive tools.
conclusionThis scoping review highlights gaps in existing medication adherence scales for NCDs, particularly their limited consideration of socioeconomic and cultural factors and incomplete adherence assessment. Future research should focus on developing more holistic, contextually relevant adherence scales that integrate these dimensions. Strengthening adherence measurement methodologies can enhance patient-centered care, inform policy interventions, and improve health outcomes.
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.