Rates of Adherence to Colorectal Cancer Medications and Predictors of Non-Adherence: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Raj, R.; Abegaz, T. M.; Nechi, R. N.; Donneyong, M. M.
Show abstract
PURPOSETo synthesize adherence rates to colorectal cancer medications and identify predictors of nonadherence. METHODSFollowing PRISMA, we searched PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, and Web of Science through August 13, 2024. Observational studies reporting adherence or predictors were eligible. Two reviewers independently screened and extracted data and assessed risk of bias using JBIs Checklist for Cohort Studies. Adherence was grouped by measurement approach: claims-based PDC/MPR, chart/clinical record review, or patient-reported. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed within clinically and methodologically homogeneous subgroups. RESULTSThirteen studies (n = 13) met inclusion, with adherence ranging from 33% to 100%. In claims-based analyses using PDC/MPR thresholds, pooled adherence was about 40% [95% CI, 0.36-0.44] with substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 84.6%). Pooled adherence was about 83% in both chart/record [95% CI, 0.44-0.97] (I2 = 71.4%) or patient-reported measures [95% CI, 0.68-0.92] (I2 = 93.8%), also with substantial heterogeneity. Nonadherence was more likely with advanced stage, ECOG [≥]1, multiple prior regimens, female sex, and treatment-related adverse events. The overall risk of bias was low, although some included studies lacked complete follow-up or strategies to address it. CONCLUSIONWe synthesized adherence to CRC medications and identified consistent predictors of nonadherence. Adherence was lowest with claims-based PDC/MPR and higher with chart or patient-reported measures. These findings support targeted interventions for patients at higher risk of non-adherence, including those in the advanced stage of the disease, those with multiple regimens, and those experiencing adverse events. Future work should use standardized adherence definitions and metric-specific reporting to enable valid pooling.
Matching journals
The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Can Large Language Models Aid Caregivers of Pediatric Cancer Patients in Information Seeking? A Cross-Sectional Investigation 90%
- COVID-19 Outcomes in Patients with Cancer: Findings from the University of California Health System Database 90%
- Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors versus dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors on new-onset overall cancer in type 2 diabetes mellitus: a population-based study 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Study Protocol: LIAM Mc Trial (Linking In with Advice and supports for Men impacted by Metastatic cancer) 93%
- Do people with disabilities experience disparities in cancer care? A systematic review 93%
- A Core Outcome Set to evaluate the impact of prognostication in people living with advanced cancer: an international consensus study 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Addressing the Needs and Identifying Supports for Parents of Chronically Ill Adolescents and Young Adults in their Shared Transition from Pediatric to Adult Care: A Scoping Review Protocol 92%
- Efficacy and safety of acupuncture for postpartum hypogalactia: Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis 92%
- A text messaging intervention to support patients with chronic pain during prescription opioid tapering: protocol for a double-blind randomised controlled trial 92%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Using a Multilingual AI Care Agent to Reduce Disparities in Colorectal Cancer Screening: Higher FIT Test Adoption Among Spanish-Speaking Patients 90%
- Assessing ChatGPT’s Mastery of Bloom’s Taxonomy using psychosomatic medicine exam questions 90%
- Substantial SF-36 score differences according to the mode of administration of the questionnaire: an ancillary study of the SENTIPAT multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing web-based questionnaire self-completion and telephone interview 89%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.