ArticleBMC nursing2026
Impact of nurse-led home visits on medication management and use of medical screenings for adults with intellectual disabilities: a randomised-controlled trial.
Article in BMC nursing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPeople with intellectual disabilities suffer from several chronic diseases earlier and more often. At the same time, they use medical screenings to prevent such diseases very irregularly due to a variety of barriers (e.g., social, communicative). Additionally, they often have to manage complex medication regimens characterised by polypharmacy and psychotropic drugs. This complexity often leads to low medication adherence. This study aimed to improve medication adherence and the uptake of medical screenings in adult clients with intellectual disabilities.
methodsWe conducted a randomised-controlled trial with waiting list and three months follow up in Germany. Clinical nurse specialists provided education to the clients and their caregivers about their medication and medical screenings during two home visits over a three-month period. They analysed the existing medication management and initiated changes where necessary. The control intervention was usual care. Inclusion criteria were: ICD diagnosis F70-79, ≥ 18 years, complex medication regimen (≥ 5 prescribed drugs) understanding of the German language. The primary outcome was medication adherence (MARS-D). Secondary outcomes were the use of medical screenings, complexity of the medication regimen, psychotropic medication, health-related quality of life and health status. Participants were randomised using block randomisation. Raters and analysts were blinded. Analysis was conducted via analysis of covariance (ANCOVA).
resultsWe recruited 162 participants, of whom 154 could be analysed. In the intervention group adherence changed from 24.7 ± 1.1 to 24.9 ± 0.4 and in control group from 24.8 ± 0.9 to 25.0 ± 1.2. A significant difference between the study groups (p > 0.05) was found only for the MRCI-D subscale “application forms” with a slightly lower complexity in the intervention group (η < 0.06, p < 0.05).
conclusionsBased on quantitative evidence nurse-led home visits did not improve medication adherence. In addition, there were no clinically meaningful changes in the secondary outcomes. The study aimed to recruit people with intellectual disabilities from a range of settings, but the vast majority of participants lived in the residential care setting. This resulted in people having high adherence at baseline. Furthermore, the three-month interval between the two visits may have been too short.
trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register DRKS00014101 (date registered: 17/08/2018).
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.