SynthesisSystematic reviews2024
Barriers and facilitators of benzathine penicillin G adherence among rheumatic heart disease patients: a mixed methods systematic review using the COM-B (capability, opportunity, and motivation for behavior) model.
Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2024. 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBenzathine penicillin G (BPG) is a proven preventive agent for preventing the progression of rheumatic heart disease (RHD) and is recognized as a standard of care. However, ensuring adherence to BPG remains a global challenge. The objective of this review was to synthesize the available evidence on the barriers to and facilitators of BPG adherence among RHD patients.
methodsThis systematic review included both qualitative and quantitative studies on RHD patients published in the English language. This systematic review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The search strategy involved PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Global Health, Scopus, and Web of Sciences databases to identify keywords and terms contained in the title and abstract and the index terms used to describe articles. The review included papers published from January 1, 2000, to March 30, 2024. Two independent reviewers screened, appraised, and extracted the data. The data analysis was carried out deductively to fit onto the components of the COM-B (Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behaviour) model.
resultsIn this review, 1067 records were screened, and 22 studies with 7338 participants were included. Thirty-five barriers and twenty facilitators were identified and mapped onto COM-B components. Physical capability (e.g., felt healthy), psychological capability (e.g., lack of knowledge), reflective motivation (e.g., poor patient handling), automatic motivation (e.g., BPG injection pain), physical opportunity (e.g., BPG unavailability) and social opportunity (e.g., inadequate counseling) were identified as barriers. The most discussed barrier was automatic motivation, followed by psychological capability and physical opportunity.
conclusionsOur review revealed variable levels of BPG adherence across studies and identified significant barriers and facilitators. Further research is recommended to identify contextual interventions to address barriers and capitalize on facilitators. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42024535398.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.