Back

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.

2026-01-08 health informatics
10.64898/2026.01.07.26343638
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 13 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
BMJ Open
based on 553 papers
Top 18%
6.4%
2
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
based on 36 papers
Top 2%
5.3%
3
eLife
based on 262 papers
Top 3%
5.3%
4
PLOS ONE
based on 1737 papers
Top 68%
5.1%
5
American Journal of Gastroenterology
based on 15 papers
Top 0.7%
4.5%
6
Cancer Medicine
based on 17 papers
Top 0.7%
4.5%
7
Journal of Medical Internet Research
based on 81 papers
Top 4%
3.9%
8
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
based on 29 papers
Top 0.6%
3.0%
9
JAMIA Open
based on 35 papers
Top 3%
3.0%
10
JAMA Network Open
based on 125 papers
Top 6%
2.8%
11
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
based on 53 papers
Top 4%
2.4%
12
BMJ Health & Care Informatics
based on 13 papers
Top 0.8%
2.4%
13
BMJ
based on 49 papers
Top 2%
2.4%
50% of probability mass above
14
Scientific Reports
based on 701 papers
Top 65%
2.3%
15
BMC Medicine
based on 155 papers
Top 9%
2.3%
16
BMC Medical Research Methodology
based on 41 papers
Top 2%
2.3%
17
BMJ Open Quality
based on 15 papers
Top 1%
2.3%
18
eClinicalMedicine
based on 55 papers
Top 1%
2.3%
19
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
based on 37 papers
Top 4%
1.6%
20
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
based on 124 papers
Top 7%
1.3%
21
Cancers
based on 57 papers
Top 6%
1.3%
22
The Lancet Digital Health
based on 25 papers
Top 3%
1.3%
23
JMIR Medical Informatics
based on 16 papers
Top 4%
1.3%
24
International Journal of Medical Informatics
based on 25 papers
Top 4%
1.3%
25
BMC Health Services Research
based on 43 papers
Top 4%
1.2%
26
JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics
based on 14 papers
Top 3%
1.2%
27
eBioMedicine
based on 82 papers
Top 5%
1.2%
28
British Journal of Cancer
based on 22 papers
Top 3%
1.2%
29
BMC Medical Genomics
based on 12 papers
Top 0.9%
0.8%
30
Clinical and Translational Science
based on 14 papers
Top 2%
0.8%