Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10865-016-9730-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
This systematic review applied meta-analytic procedures to integrate primary research that examined blood pressure outcomes of medication adherence interventions. Random-effects model analysis calculated standardized mean difference effect sizes. Exploratory dichotomous and continuous moderator analyses using meta-analytic analogues of ANOVA and regression were performed. Codable data were extracted from 156 reports with 60,876 participants. The overall weighted mean difference systolic effect size was 0.235 across 161 treatment versus control comparisons. The diastolic effect size was 0.189 from 181 comparisons. Effect sizes were significantly heterogeneous. Common risks of bias included lack of allocation concealment, unmasked data collectors, and absent intention-to-treat analyses. Exploratory moderator analyses suggested that habit-based interventions may be most effective. The largest effect sizes were for interventions delivered by pharmacists. The modest magnitude effect sizes suggest future research should explore novel higher dose interventions that might address multiple levels of influence on adherence behavior.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 43 kb)10865_2016_9730_MOESM1_ESM.docx
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. West Sussex, England: Wiley. CrossRef
CDC. (2015). High blood pressure fact sheet. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/dhdsp/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fs_bloodpressure.htm.
Clark, C. E., Smith, L. F., Taylor, R. S., & Campbell, J. L. (2011). Nurse-led interventions used to improve control of high blood pressure in people with diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetic Medicine, 28, 250–261. PubMed
Conn, V. S., & Rantz, M. J. (2003). Research methods: Managing primary study quality in meta-analyses. Research in Nursing & Health, 26, 322–333. CrossRef
Conn, V. S., Ruppar, T., Enriquez, M., & Cooper, P. S. (2016). Medication adherence interventions that target subjects with adherence problems: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 12, 218–246.
Cooper, H., Hedges, L. V., & Valentine, J. C. (Eds.). (2009). The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
de Vet, H. C., de Bie, R. A., van der Heijden, G. J., Verhagen, A. P., Sijpkes, P., & Kipschild, P. (1997). Systematic review on the basis of methodological criteria. Physiotherapy, 83, 284–289. CrossRef
Devine, E. (1997). Issues and challenges in coding interventions for meta-analysis of prevention research. In W. Bukoski (Ed.), Meta- analysis of drug abuse prevention programs (pp. 130–146. NIDA research monograph; 170). Retrieved from http://archives.drugabuse.gov/pdf/monographs/monograph170/monograph170.pdf.
Glynn, L. G., Murphy, A. W., Smith, S. M., Schroeder, K., & Fahey, T. (2010). Interventions used to improve control of blood pressure in patients with hypertension. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Art. No.: CD005182. doi: 10.1002/14651858. CD005182.pub4
Gwadry-Sridhar, F. H., Manias, E., Lal, L., Salas, M., Hughes, D. A., Ratzki-Leewing, A., et al. (2013). Impact of interventions on medication adherence and blood pressure control in patients with essential hypertension: A systematic review by the ISPOR medication adherence and persistence special interest group. Value in Health, 16, 863–871. CrossRefPubMed
Hedges, L., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Hedges, L., & Vevea, J. (1998). Fixed- and random-effects models in meta-analysis. Psychological Methods, 3, 486–504. CrossRef
Higgins, J., Altman, D., & Sterne, J. (2011). Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In J. Higgins & S. Green (Eds.), Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Retrieved from http://handbook.cochrane.org/chapter_8/8_assessing_risk_of_bias_in_included_studies.htm.
Jayasinghe, J. (2009). Non-adherence in the hypertensive patient: Can nursing play a role in assessing and improving compliance? Canadian Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing, 19, 7–12. PubMed
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gotzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P., et al. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 62, e1–e34. CrossRefPubMed
Lipsey, M., & Wilson, D. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Orwin, R., & Vevea, J. (2009). Evaluating coding decisions. In H. Cooper, L. Hedges, & J. Valentine (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed., pp. 177–203). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Raudenbush, S. (2009). Random effects models. In H. Cooper, L. Hedges, & J. Valentine (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed., pp. 295–315). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Rothstein, H. R., & Hopewell, S. (2009). Grey literature. In H. Cooper, L. Hedges, & J. Valentine (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed., pp. 103–125). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Schroeder, K., Fahey, T., & Ebrahim, S. (2004). Interventions for improving adherence to treatment in patients with high blood pressure in ambulatory settings. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Art.No.:CD004804. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004804
Shadish, W., & Haddock, C. (2009). Combining estimates of effect size. In H. Cooper, L. Hedges, & J. Valentine (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed., pp. 257–277). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Sutton, A. J. (2009). Publicaton bias. In H. Cooper, L. Hedges, & J. Valentine (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed., pp. 435–452). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Valentine, J. (2009). Judging the quality of primary research. In H. Cooper, L. Hedges, & J. Valentine (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed., pp. 129–146). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
White, H. (2009). Scientific communication and literature retrieval. In H. Cooper, L. Hedges, & J. Valentine (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed., pp. 51–71). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Wood, J. A. (2008). Methodology for dealing with duplicate study effects in a meta-analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 79–95. CrossRef
- Blood pressure outcomes of medication adherence interventions: systematic review and meta-analysis
Vicki S. Conn
Todd M. Ruppar
Jo-Ana D. Chase
- Springer US