ÜBERMAD

GoalsReview

Medicine help worked a little; help linked to habits worked better.

HelpedThe short version

Help with taking medicines got people to take their medicine as planned more often than the other group did.

A man in a striped jumper lifts and shuts the lid of a weekly pill organiser on his kitchen counter, beside his coffee mug.
739
studies pooled
568,811
people who take medicines, in 771 studies
4 tools
tested

The review

  1. Who took part

    568,811 people took part in 771 studies, about 98 in a typical study. The typical study's average age was about 56, and most studies were in North America.

  2. What they did

    Each study compared help with taking medicines against a group that got usual care or basic contact. The help used many methods, such as reminders, tracking, teaching, rewards and habit work.

  3. What happened

    Overall, the help worked a little: the other groups took about 77 in every 100 prescribed doses, the help groups about 84. Help linked to habits, and help with reminders or rewards, did better, but help aimed at beliefs made no clear difference. Overall results showed signs of publication bias, and many studies had weak designs.

What the review found

  1. Helped

    Help with taking medicines got people to take their medicine as planned more often than the other group did.

    Pooled analysis of 739 studies with 568,811 people · vs a group that got usual care or basic contact · ⚠ signs that small negative studies went unpublished; the studies disagreed a lot; whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited

  2. Helped

    Help that linked taking medicine to an existing habit worked better than help that did not.

    Pooled analysis of 0 studies · vs help that did not link it to a habit · ⚠ whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited

  3. Helped

    Help that used methods such as reminders and rewards worked better than help without them.

    Pooled analysis of 739 studies · vs help with none of these methods · ⚠ whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited

  4. No difference

    Help that tried to change beliefs or knowledge did no better than help without that.

    Pooled analysis of 739 studies · vs help that did not try to change beliefs or knowledge · ⚠ whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited

How solid is this?

  • Large group
  • Whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited
  • Signs that small negative studies went unpublished

Source

Medication adherence outcomes of 771 intervention trials: Systematic review and meta-analysis (2017)

DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2017.03.008 (opens in a new tab)

More on goals

See all