Amanda R McCullough1, Crístín Ryan2, Christopher Macindoe3, Nathan Yii3, Judy M Bradley4, Brenda O'Neill5, J Stuart Elborn4, Carmel M Hughes6. 1. Centre for Research in Evidence-based Practice, Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Queensland, Australia. Electronic address: amccullo@bond.edu.au. 2. School of Pharmacy, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland. 3. Centre for Research in Evidence-based Practice, Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Queensland, Australia. 4. School of Medicine, Biomedical Sciences and Dentistry, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK. 5. Centre for Health and Rehabilitation Technologies (CHaRT), Institute of Nursing and Health Research, Ulster University, Jordanstown, UK. 6. School of Pharmacy, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We sought to describe the theory used to design treatment adherence interventions, the content delivered, and the mode of delivery of these interventions in chronic respiratory disease. METHODS: We included randomized controlled trials of adherence interventions (compared to another intervention or control) in adults with chronic respiratory disease (8 databases searched; inception until March 2015). Two reviewers screened and extracted data: post-intervention adherence (measured objectively); behavior change theory, content (grouped into psychological, education and self-management/supportive, telemonitoring, shared decision-making); and delivery. "Effective" studies were those with p < 0.05 for adherence rate between groups. We conducted a narrative synthesis and assessed risk of bias. RESULTS: 12,488 articles screened; 46 included studies (n = 42,91% in OSA or asthma) testing 58 interventions (n = 27, 47% were effective). Nineteen (33%) interventions (15 studies) used 12 different behavior change theories. Use of theory (n = 11,41%) was more common amongst effective interventions. Interventions were mainly educational, self-management or supportive interventions (n = 27,47%). They were commonly delivered by a doctor (n = 20,23%), in face-to-face (n = 48,70%), one-to-one (n = 45,78%) outpatient settings (n = 46,79%) across 2-5 sessions (n = 26,45%) for 1-3 months (n = 26,45%). Doctors delivered a lower proportion (n = 7,18% vs n = 13,28%) and pharmacists (n = 6,15% vs n = 1,2%) a higher proportion of effective than ineffective interventions. Risk of bias was high in >1 domain (n = 43, 93%) in most studies. CONCLUSIONS: Behavior change theory was more commonly used to design effective interventions. Few adherence interventions have been developed using theory, representing a gap between intervention design recommendations and research practice.
BACKGROUND: We sought to describe the theory used to design treatment adherence interventions, the content delivered, and the mode of delivery of these interventions in chronic respiratory disease. METHODS: We included randomized controlled trials of adherence interventions (compared to another intervention or control) in adults with chronic respiratory disease (8 databases searched; inception until March 2015). Two reviewers screened and extracted data: post-intervention adherence (measured objectively); behavior change theory, content (grouped into psychological, education and self-management/supportive, telemonitoring, shared decision-making); and delivery. "Effective" studies were those with p < 0.05 for adherence rate between groups. We conducted a narrative synthesis and assessed risk of bias. RESULTS: 12,488 articles screened; 46 included studies (n = 42,91% in OSA or asthma) testing 58 interventions (n = 27, 47% were effective). Nineteen (33%) interventions (15 studies) used 12 different behavior change theories. Use of theory (n = 11,41%) was more common amongst effective interventions. Interventions were mainly educational, self-management or supportive interventions (n = 27,47%). They were commonly delivered by a doctor (n = 20,23%), in face-to-face (n = 48,70%), one-to-one (n = 45,78%) outpatient settings (n = 46,79%) across 2-5 sessions (n = 26,45%) for 1-3 months (n = 26,45%). Doctors delivered a lower proportion (n = 7,18% vs n = 13,28%) and pharmacists (n = 6,15% vs n = 1,2%) a higher proportion of effective than ineffective interventions. Risk of bias was high in >1 domain (n = 43, 93%) in most studies. CONCLUSIONS: Behavior change theory was more commonly used to design effective interventions. Few adherence interventions have been developed using theory, representing a gap between intervention design recommendations and research practice.
Authors: Jerry A Krishnan; Molly A Martin; Cortland Lohff; Giselle S Mosnaim; Helen Margellos-Anast; Julie A DeLisa; Kate McMahon; Kim Erwin; Leslie S Zun; Michael L Berbaum; Michael McDermott; Nina E Bracken; Rajesh Kumar; S Margaret Paik; Sharmilee M Nyenhuis; Stacy Ignoffo; Valerie G Press; Zachary E Pittsenbarger; Trevonne M Thompson Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2017-03-31 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Marie T Williams; Tanja W Effing; Catherine Paquet; Carole A Gibbs; Hayley Lewthwaite; Lok Sze Katrina Li; Anna C Phillips; Kylie N Johnston Journal: Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis Date: 2017-07-26
Authors: Helen J Lycett; Eva M Raebel; Emilie K Wildman; Jordi Guitart; Thomas Kenny; Jon-Paul Sherlock; Vanessa Cooper Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2018-12-12 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Jennifer T Sonney; Hilaire J Thompson; Carol A Landis; Kenneth C Pike; Maida L Chen; Michelle M Garrison; Teresa M Ward Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2020-06-15 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: Andrzej Witusik; Łukasz Mokros; Marcin Kosmalski; Michał Panek; Katarzyna Nowakowska-Domagała; Kasper Sipowicz; Piotr Kuna; Tadeusz Pietras Journal: Postepy Dermatol Alergol Date: 2018-08-21 Impact factor: 1.837