ArticleEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2026
Healthcare professionals' perspectives on medication adherence-supporting tools: a cross‑sectional survey in Italy.
Article in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeMedication adherence is essential for treatment effectiveness, yet the uptake of adherence-supporting tools in routine care remains suboptimal. This study assessed Italian healthcare professionals' knowledge, perceived utility, and willingness to recommend medication adherence tools, and explored perceived barriers to their adoption.
methodsA questionnaire targeting healthcare professionals working in inpatient or outpatient settings across Italy was developed and validated by a panel of seven experts. It was anonymously distributed online between October and December 2023 to physicians, pharmacists, and nurses. The survey included open-ended and Likert-scale questions investigating use, perceived usefulness, barriers, and future willingness to recommend specific medication adherence tools. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, and differences by professional category were evaluated using Chi-square or Fisher's exact tests. Open-ended responses were analyzed through a multi-step conventional content analysis independently conducted by two researchers.
resultsA total of 660 healthcare professionals participated, including pharmacists (35%), nurses (26%), general practitioners (22%), geriatricians or internists (8.6%), and other medical doctors (8.5%). Overall, knowledge and recommendation regarding medication adherence tools were limited, with awareness ranging from 40.0% to 94.7% depending on the tool. Traditional tools such as pillboxes and paper diaries were more frequently used (42.1% and 26.3%, respectively) and were perceived as useful (26.7% and 22.3%). In contrast, digital tools (e.g., mobile apps, SMS reminders, electronic pillboxes) were rarely recommended and often described as unfamiliar. Patient-related barriers emerged as the most commonly reported obstacles for both traditional and digital tools.
conclusionsItalian healthcare professionals show limited familiarity with and use of medication adherence tools, particularly digital solutions. Targeted training and system-level strategies are needed to increase awareness, address perceived barriers, and promote the integration of effective adherence-supporting tools into routine care.
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.