Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32301066›Full record

Trial reportInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2020

Effect of health professional intervention on adherence to statin use according to the cause of patient non-adherence.

Ainhoa Oñatibia-Astibia, Amaia Malet-Larrea, Miguel Ángel Gastelurrutia, Begoña Calvo, Dulce Ramírez, Ignacio Cantero, Estibaliz Goyenechea

Abstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

7 authors.

Ainhoa Oñatibia-AstibiaOfficial Pharmacist Association of Gipuzkoa, Prim 2, 20006, Donostia/San Sebastian, Spain. ainhoaonatibia@redfarma.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1726-6943
Amaia Malet-LarreaOfficial Pharmacist Association of Gipuzkoa, Prim 2, 20006, Donostia/San Sebastian, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2809-6249
Miguel Ángel GastelurrutiaPharmaceutical Care Research Group, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Granada, Campus Universitario de Cartuja, 18071, Granada, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1019-0234
Begoña CalvoPharmaceutical Technology Department, Faculty of Pharmacy, Universidad del País Vasco UPV/EHU, P. Universidad 7, 01006, Vitoria, Spain.
Dulce RamírezObservatory of Adherence Treatment (OAT), Serrano 240-4, 28016, Madrid, Spain.
Ignacio CanteroObservatory of Adherence Treatment (OAT), Serrano 240-4, 28016, Madrid, Spain.
Estibaliz GoyenecheaOfficial Pharmacist Association of Gipuzkoa, Prim 2, 20006, Donostia/San Sebastian, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background Non-adherence is a problem that particularly affects those with chronic diseases. Studying causes for not following the treatment is necessary to choose the best intervention to improve non-adherence. Objective Analyze how the intentionality of non-adherence modulates the effects of professional intervention in patients with hypercholesterolemia. Setting: Community pharmacies and primary care centres in Spain. Methods A 6-month randomized controlled trial was conducted in 46 community pharmacies and 50 primary care centres in Spain. Adherence to statin therapy was measured with the Morisky-Green-Levine test. Non-adherence was classified based on the intentionality. Results 746 Patients were recruited for the study (465 non-adherent and 281 adherent). Of those, 237 were randomly assigned to the intervention group and 228 to the non-intervention group. The 56.5% of non-adherent patients were classified as unintentional non-adherents and 43.5% as intentional non-adherents. More patients in the intervention group finished being adherent compared with the non-intervention group (+ 17.2% for intentional non-adherents and + 27.4% for unintentional non-adherence). The percentage of patients in the intervention group who completed the study as adherent was higher among those who previously had unintentional non-adherence (66.4%) compared to those with intentional non- adherence (55.3%) (p < 0.001). Conclusion Intervention provided to patients with unintentional non-adherence was more effective than intervention provided to patients with intentional non- adherence.

Indexed as

Drug MonitoringAgedCommunity Pharmacy ServicesFemaleGeneral PractitionersHumansHydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase InhibitorsHypercholesterolemiaMaleMedication AdherenceMiddle AgedPharmacistsPrimary Health CareSpainHydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase InhibitorsCommunity pharmacyComplianceIntentional non-adherenceSpainUnintentional non-adherence

Identifiers

PMID32301066

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
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 Socratic graph.