uu.seUppsala University Publications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
A systematic literature review comparing methods for the measurement of patient persistence and adherence
Kleijnen Systemat Reviews Ltd, York, N Yorkshire, England.
Kleijnen Systemat Reviews Ltd, York, N Yorkshire, England.
Amgen Europe GmbH, Global Hlth Econ, Zug, Switzerland.
Amgen Europe GmbH, Global Hlth Econ, Zug, Switzerland.
Show others and affiliations
2018 (English)In: Current Medical Research and Opinion, ISSN 0300-7995, E-ISSN 1473-4877, Vol. 34, no 9, p. 1613-1625Article, review/survey (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Objectives: A systematic literature review was conducted comparing different approaches estimating persistence and adherence in chronic diseases with polypharmacy of oral and subcutaneous treatments. Methods: This work followed published guidance on performing systematic reviews. Twelve electronic databases and grey literature sources were used to identify studies and guidelines for persistence and adherence of oral and subcutaneous therapies in hypercholesterolemia, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, osteoporosis and rheumatoid arthritis. Outcomes of interest of each persistence and adherence data collection and calculation method included pros: accurate, easy to use, inexpensive; and cons: inaccurate, difficult to use, expensive. Results: A total of 4158 records were retrieved up to March 2017. We included 16 observational studies, 5 systematic reviews and 7 guidelines, in patients with hypercholesterolemia (n=8), type 2 diabetes (n=4), hypertension (n=2), rheumatoid arthritis (n=1) and mixed patient populations (n=13). Pharmacy and medical records offer an accurate, easy and inexpensive data collection method. Pill count, medication event monitoring systems (MEMs), self-report questionnaires and observer report are easy to use. MEMS and biochemical monitoring tests can be expensive. Proportion of days covered (PDC) was recommended as a gold standard calculation method for long-term treatments. PDC avoids use of days' supply in calculation, hence is more accurate compared to medication possession ratio (MPR) to assess adherence to treatments in chronic diseases. Conclusions: Decisions on what method to use should be based on considerations of the route of medication administration, the resources available, setting and aim of the assessment. Combining different methods may provide wider insights into adherence and persistence, including patient behavior.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Taylor & Francis Group, 2018. Vol. 34, no 9, p. 1613-1625
Keywords [en]
Cardiovascular diseases, chronic disease, adherence, persistence, methodology, systematic review
National Category
Social and Clinical Pharmacy Pharmaceutical Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-365685DOI: 10.1080/03007995.2018.1477747ISI: 000441048500010PubMedID: 29770718OAI: oai:DiVA.org:uu-365685DiVA, id: diva2:1262711
Available from: 2018-11-12 Created: 2018-11-12 Last updated: 2018-11-12Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Authority records BETA

Hagström, Emil

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Hagström, Emil
By organisation
UCR-Uppsala Clinical Research CenterCardiology
In the same journal
Current Medical Research and Opinion
Social and Clinical PharmacyPharmaceutical Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 97 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf