Medication adherence and its impact on glycemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients with comorbidity: A multicenter cross-sectional study in Northwest Ethiopia.

BACKGROUND: Medication nonadherence in patients with chronic diseases, particularly in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) with comorbidity, has continued to be the cause of treatment failure. The current study assessed medication adherence and its impact on glycemic control in T2DM patients with comorbidity.
METHODS: An institutional-based multicenter cross-sectional study was conducted among T2DM patients with comorbidity at the selected hospitals in Northwest Ethiopia. Medication adherence was measured using a structured questionnaire of the General Medication Adherence Scale (GMAS). A logistic regression model was used to identify predictors of the level of medication adherence and glycemic control. P < 0.05 at 95% confidence interval (CI) was statistically significant.
RESULTS: A total of 403 samples were included in the final study. This study showed that more than three-fourths (76.9%) of the participants were under a low level of medication adherence. Source of medication cost coverage [AOR = 10.593, 95% CI (2.628-41.835; P = 0.003], monthly income (P < 0.00), self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) practice [AOR = 0.266, 95% CI (0.117-0.604); P = 0.002], number of medications [AOR = 0.068, 95% CI (0.004-0.813); P = 0.014] and medical conditions [AOR = 0.307, 95% CI (0.026-0.437); P = 0.018] were found to be significant predictors of medication adherence. Significantly, majority (74.7%) of participants had poor levels of glycemic control. Patients who had a high level of medication adherence [AOR = 0.003, 95% CI (0.000-0.113); P = 0.002] were found less likely to have poor glycemic control compared with patients who were low adherent to their medications.
CONCLUSION: The current study concluded that medication adherence was low and significantly associated with poor glycemic control. Number of medical conditions and medications were found to be associated with medication adherence. Management interventions of T2DM patients with comorbidity should focus on the improvement of medication adherence.

Introduction

Diabetes mellitus (DM) continues to be a public health problem worldwide with the number of people presenting with diabetes estimated to be 783 million by 2045 [1]. The prevalence of T2DM in developing countries has increased rapidly worldwide and accounts for more than 95% of diabetes cases [2]. The majority (three-fourths) of the diabetes patients are living in low and middle-income countries [3]. In Africa, it was reported to be 24 million in 2021 and estimated to reach 55 million (5%) by 2045 [1]. This makes diabetes becomes among the most common public health threats. The growth rate of DM has also increased in Ethiopia, and there is an observable change in lifestyle and significant increases in population and urbanization, which are the identified risk factors for DM. About more than two and a half million adults in Ethiopia have currently live with diabetes [4], and the prevalence has increased dramatically from 3.8% to 5.2% [5]. These make Ethiopia as one of the sub-Saharan Africa countries with the largest population of diabetes. While T2DM is estimated to be higher than this figure and the pooled prevalence reaches 8% [6].

The main treatment goal of diabetes patients is to maintain glycemic control and prevent diabetes-related complications, and morbidities and mortality [7]. However, suboptimal management of patients leads to treatment failure and complications [8]. For treating patients with diabetes, self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG), lifestyle modifications and the administration of medications are the recommended management interventions [9]. Nevertheless, medication non-adherence to the prescribed regimens has been continued to be a barrier of effective treatment outcome in the management of chronic disease conditions [7, 10]. Non-adherence to prescribed medication regimes contributes to treatment failure, risk of hospitalization, and morbidity and mortality in patients with long-term medication therapy [11].

Globally, a significant proportion of T2DM patients are non-adherent to their prescribed medications. Even, in the developed states around 50% of patients are non-adherent to their long-term medication and it is also much higher in low-and middle-income countries [12]. Personal and socio-demographic characteristics as well as medication regimen complexity, clinical characteristics and the number of medical conditions are factors that influence medication adherence in patients with chronic diseases [13-17]. Different studies have shown that non-adherence to prescribed medications in patients with diabetes mellitus is reported to be high and ranges from 6.3% to 87% [7, 18–20]. Evidence suggests that non-adherence to diabetes medications affects glycemic control that leads to complications associated with diabetes progression, hospitalizations, morbidity and mortality [3, 17, 21–24]. This in turn increases the risk of negative consequences and high medical costs with considerable direct and indirect problems to the sustainability of the healthcare system [3, 17, 21–24].

Studies also revealed that knowledge about diabetes and medications, level of patient educational status, occupational status, duration of diabetes and its treatments are among the factors that contribute to medication adherence [25-28]. Majority of patients with T2DM in Ethiopia are with comorbidities such as hypertension, dyslipidemia and macrovascular complications and had significantly poor glycemic control [28, 29]. Polypharmacy and medication regimen complexity have been considered to be the most factors of poor adherence to medications among patients with chronic disease conditions and comorbidities [30, 31]. The burden of diabetes has increased and the prevalence of comorbidities is much higher among T2DM patients in Ethiopia. However, there is a paucity of real-world evidence, particularly in the study settings, which assessed medication adherence and its impact on glycemic control among T2DM patients with comorbidities. Therefore, this study assessed medication adherence among patents with T2DM and comorbidity at selected hospitals in Northwest Ethiopia. Moreover, the study also assessed the impact of medication adherence on glycemic control in patients with T2DM.

Methods and materials

Study design, settings and participants

An institutional-based multicenter cross-sectional study was conducted among T2DM patients with comorbidity. The study was employed in outpatient follow-up clinics at selected hospitals in Northwest Ethiopia from January to March 2022. The study area Northwest Ethiopia is the geographical location of the Northwestern part of the Amhara regional state, which is a metropolitan area and one of the Ethiopian government administration regional states. The study samples were recruited from the University of Gondar Comprehensive specialized hospital (UoGCSH), Tibebe-Ghion Comprehensive Specialized hospital (TGCSH), Felege-Hiwot Comprehensive Specialized hospital (FHCSH) and Debre-Tabor Comprehensive Specialized hospital (DTCH). The study hospitals are governmental hospitals, which have been served more than 20 million population and were randomly selected among several public and university hospitals found in the region. All the selected hospitals have chronic follow-up clinics, including diabetes patient care.

To be included in the study, participants should be adults (aged 18 years or older), diagnosed with T2DM, and are diagnosed with at least one comorbidity. In addition, they have been on treatment for at least a minimum of three months. While patients who were unable to communicate because of neurological or psychiatric illness, and/or severely ill patients, pregnant mothers, patients with incomplete medical records were excluded from this study.

Sample size determination and sampling techniques

We determined the sample size using a single population proportion formula by considering; response distribution, P = 0.5 (50%), and at 95% confidence interval, the marginal error was 5% for the two-tailed type-I error (Zα = 1.96). The sample size was to be 385. Finally, considering a 10% potential nonresponse to the interview and/or missed or lost data on the patient’s medical record, 423 patients were approached in the final study. Then, the final sample size was proportionally divided into the selected hospitals to take a representative sample from each hospital. The number of patients with T2DM in each hospital was taken from records of the previous three follow-up months in the settings. All T2DM patients who fulfilled the inclusion criteria and come for follow-up during the data collection periods were approached until the required sample was achieved. Eventually, proportional to the number of T2DM patients in the selected hospitals; 174, 125, 68, and 56 eligible patients were included at the diabetes follow-up clinics of UoGCSH, FHCSH, DTCSH and TGCSH hospitals, respectively. Study participants from all selected hospitals were included using consecutive sampling technique.

Data collection instruments and procedures

Data was collected using a structured questionnaire. The data collection tool was prepared in English version after reviewing different related literature on similar topics and some modifications were made considering the local clinical settings. It was translated to local language, Amharic for making easy for data collection process. The tool was organized with different sections. The first section consisted of socio-demographic sections that included age, sex, weight, BMI, residency, educational status, employment status, physical activity, SMBG practice and cigarette smoking habit of the participants. The second section describes the clinical characteristics of the participants. This section is consisted of a type of medical condition such as comorbidities and complications, number of medical conditions, laboratory tests, blood glucose and blood pressure values and prescribed medications used for treating the study participants. Questionnaires assessing medication adherence is the last section of the data collection instrument.

The data was collected by four experienced nurses and two pharmacists from the hospitals after getting of training on the purpose of the study, data collection instruments and producers and about ethical aspects. The data collectors were engaged voluntarily. After the medical record identification numbers were entered into the Microsoft excel 2013 and checked for repetition, the data were extracted, and the patients were interviewed. Data were collected on direct patient interviews for primary data, and laboratory tests, medical conditions and dosage of medications were recorded from patients’ medical records. Laboratory test results were also checked from printed laboratory records.

Treatment intensification and titrations were made according to ADA recommendations. Metformin alone or with insulin and/or glibenclamide were the medication regimens used to treat T2DM in the study settings. The glycemic level of the participants was determined by an average of three different records of FBG, at least one month apart, this was because of inconsistent records of HbA1c in the study settings and included participants. In the resource-limited settings, a very limited number of patients were monitored using HbA1c in a regular fashion. The weight and height of the participants were measured using a digital weight scale and stadiometer as physical examination part.

Adherence

It indicates the active, voluntary, and collaborative decisional involvement of the patient in a mutually acceptable course of behavior to produce a therapeutic result.

Body mass index (BMI)

It is measured from weight in kilograms (kg) divided by the square of the patient’s height in meters (kg/m2). Based on the world health organization; BMI was classified and interpreted as < 18.5 kg/m2 (underweight), 18.5–24.9 kg/m2 (normal weight), 25–29.5 kg/m2 (overweight) and ≥ 30 kg/m2 (obesity).

Outcome measurements

Adherence measurement

Medication adherence was measured by using the General Medication Adherence Scale (GMAS), which has an 11-item questionnaire that provides a convenient way of tracking compliance using a combination of subjective and objective measures. Each item had four Likert scores, with a minimum score of 0 and a maximum score of 3. The items are subdivided in to (I) patient behavior-related medication adherence questionnaires (5 items) (II) pill/injection burden due to additional disease related questionnaires (4 items), and (III) the third subsection is payment-related questionnaires (2 items). The GMAS instrument of medication adherence has been used and validated in several studies of different chronic diseases [32-35]. The English version of the questionnaire is also validated [34] with an internal consistency of the items for its reliability test of Cronbach alpha resulted 0.84 and the item-level content validity indexes were ≥ 0.79.

The final outcome score used to categorize the medication adherence level as low adherence and high adherence was determined by computing the sum of each item scores. If the overall GMAS score ≤ 26, the patient was categorized under low adherence and patients were categorized under high adherence if the GMAS score was greater than or equal to 27 out of 33 overall maximum points [36].

Glycemic control measurement

In this study, the level of glycemic control is measured based on ADA recommendations. Glycemic level in the range of FBG < 70 mg/dl and > 130 mg/dl to be poor glycemic and FBG of 70–130 mg/dl was good glycemic control. The level of FBG used to determine glycemic control was taken from the average of three recorded FBG’s which were measured for at least a month apart.

Data quality control and statistical analysis

Before the actual data collection, the questionnaire was pre-tested on 5% of the study subjects in one of the study areas (excluded from the final analyses) to ensure completeness and consistency of the data collection tool. Then, an appropriate amendment was employed. The data was collected by experienced nurses and pharmacists after getting training for two days. The supervisor explicitly clarified the purpose of the study and about data collection tools and techniques. The data collection procedure was monitored closely. After the medical record identification numbers were entered into the Microsoft excel 2013 and checked for repetition, the patients were interviewed and simultaneously the data was extracted.

Once the data was collected; quality, completeness, consistency and clarity were checked before any further analysis was performed. Then, it was entered into Epi-Info version 8, and transported and analyzed with the Statistical Packages for Social Sciences (SPSS) version-26. Shapiro-Wilk tests, Q-Q plots, and histograms were used to examine the normal distribution of the data. Categorical variables are presented as frequencies and percentages. While means with standard divisions (±SD) were used to display results for continuous variables. A logistic regression model was used to assess the association of medication adherence and glycemic control, and with other predictor variables. Variables with p ≤ 0.2 in the bivariate analysis were considered for further analyses in the multivariable analysis to identify predictor variables with medication adherence and glycemic control status. P < 0.05 at 95% CI was statistically significant.

Ethical considerations

Initially, the study was ethically approved by the ethical review committee of the University of Gondar with a reference number of Sop/037/2021. Then, permission confirmation was gained from the selected hospitals to proceed with the study. Participants were asked with both written and verbal consent forms, and after the objectives of the study were briefed, consent was accessed to interview them. Confidentiality was kept and sufficiently anonymized and the study was conducted according to the Helsinki legislation.

Results

Socio-demographic and clinical characteristics of the study participants

Out of 423 approached participants, 403 samples were included in the final study. Greater than half (54.8%) of the participants were males with a mean (±SD) age of 55±10.8 years. In addition to T2DM, most of the participants were comorbid with hypertension (71.2%) followed by dyslipidemia (42.4%). An average of 2.8 (ranges: 2–6) medical conditions per patient were recorded. The average FBG level of the participants was estimated to be 176.0 mg/dl ().

Medications used for treating participants

A greater proportion of the participants (32.5%) were treated with a combination of metformin plus insulin, and NPH insulin accounts higher proportion 46.9%) from types of insulin regimens. Enalapril (24.3%) and atorvastatin (35.5%) were also commonly prescribed antihypertensive and lipid-lowering agents, respectively. An average of 4.2 (range: 2–9) medications were prescribed per patient. The average daily dose of insulin, metformin and glibenclamide were 17.2 units (range: 10–40), 1356.8 (range: 500–2000) mg and 13.2 (ranges: 5–20) mg, respectively ().

Level of medication adherence of the study participants

A higher proportion of the participants who responded to the GMAS measuring items that they were missed their medications either mostly or sometimes. Overall, the current findings showed that medication adherence is significantly lower. More than three-fourths of the participants (76.9%) 95% CI (72.7–81.1) were low adherent to their medications, with an average overall GMAS score of 22.08 (ranges:15–33) out of 33 points ( and ).

Determinants of medication adherence

Predictor variables of the level of medication adherence were identified using logistic regression analysis. The multivariable logistic regression model showed that sources of medication cost coverage, monthly income, SMBG practice, number of medications and medical conditions were found to have a significant association with the level of medication adherence. Participants who covered their medication costs out of pocket were found more likely to be low adherent to their medication compared to those who received medications without payment [AOR = 10.593, 95% CI (2.628–41.835); p = 0.003]. Similarly, patients with lower monthly income (< 1500, 1500–2999, and 3000–4999) were also found more likely to have low adherence to their medications compared to patients who had 5000 and higher monthly income [AOR = 13.896, 95% CI (2.598–46.199), AOR = 9.369, 95% CI (2.940–25.785) and AOR = 5.095, 95% CI (2.549–13.308); p < 0.001], respectively. In contrast, patients who could practice SMBG, patients with a lower number of medications (≤ 3) and patients with two medical conditions were found less likely to be low adherent to their medications compared to patients who did not practice SMBG, patients with greater than or equal to six numbers of medications and patients with greater than or equal to five medical conditions: [AOR = 0.266, 95% CI (0.117–0.604); p = 0.002], [AOR = 0.068, 95% CI (0.004–0.813); p = 0.014] and [AOR = 0.307, 95% CI (0.026–0.437); p = 0.018], respectively ().

Level of glycemic control and its association with medication adherence and other variables

Overall, the average blood glucose level of the participants was far higher than the target level, with an average FBG of 176.0±51.4 mg/dl (ranges: 89–349). Compared to adherent patients (Mn = 130.1) nonadherent participants had significantly worse FBG levels (Mn = 190.9). In terms of the level of glycemic control, around three-fourths (74.7%) of the study participants had a poor level of glycemic control, and only one-fourth (25.3%) had achieved a target glycemic level.

The multivariable logistic regression model showed that SMBG practice of the patients, level of BMI (Kg/m2) and level of medication adherence were found to have a significant association with the level of glycemic control in patients with T2DM with comorbidity. With holding other variables constant, patients who could practice SMBG [AOR = 0.319, 95% CI (0.056–0.829): p = 0.020], patients who had a normal level of BMI [AOR = 0.280 95% CI (0.002–0.474); p = 0.013], and patients with high medication adherence [AOR = 0.003, 95% CI (0.000–0.113); p = 0.002] were found less likely to have poor glycemic control compared with patients who were not practiced SMBG, patients with obesity and patients who had low medication adherence, respectively ().

Discussion

This institutional-based multicenter study has gone through highlighting the level of medication adherence using a structured questionnaire of GMAS for chronic diseases and its impact on glycemic control in T2DM patients with comorbidity. Ensuring medication adherence in patients with chronic conditions, especially in multimorbid patients is continued to be the most challenging in healthcare practice because of medication complexity and its multiple burden. The problem is more severe in low-income countries and poor settings where there is a low level of patients’ educational status, knowledge about diabetes and medications [25-28]. In Ethiopia, a significant proportion of patients with T2DM have comorbid conditions like hypertension, dyslipidemia and macrovascular and microvascular complications [29]. However, medication adherence can be influenced by the medication regimen complexity and the polypharmacy [30, 31, 37] used to treat these comorbidities. Poor glycemic control because of poor medication adherence can increase the risk of negative consequences and medical costs with significant impactful problems to the sustainability of the healthcare system [3, 17, 22–24].

The current study showed that a higher proportion of T2DM patients with comorbidity were low adherent to their medications and were found to have a poor level of glycemic control. Participants who covered their medication costs out of pocket and those patients with lower monthly income were found more likely to have low adherence to their medications. However, patients who could practice SMBG, patients with a lower number of medications and those patients with a lower number of medical conditions were found less likely to become low adherent to their medications. Further, this study disclosed that the level of glycemic control was found to have a significant association with the level of medication adherence.

In this study, most of the participants were found to have a low level of medication adherence. This finding is consistent with an earlier study [38], but it is much higher than the other studies [14, 18, 36, 39–41]. The study findings indicate that a significant proportion of patients with comorbidity fail to achieve the expected adherence level of medications. This might be because patients may discontinue medications due to other medications for additional diseases and or it might be difficult to remember medications due to medication regimen complexity. The current study also disclosed that around two-thirds of the participants responded that they discontinued medications either sometimes or mostly because of other medicines for additional problems and difficulty in remembering because of medication complexity. The other possibilities for their lower medication adherence are the patients’ fear of medication adverse effects, medication expensiveness and poor patients’ behavior towards their medication. Thus, the finding has implications, which need to be focus towards improving the medication adherence of T2DM patients with comorbidity. In addition, particularly in Ethiopia, the problem might be related to a low level of patients’ knowledge about the diabetes, their medications and low socio-economic status, literacy status, cultural and personal perceptions as well as healthcare factors. The previous study also showed that personal beliefs and literacy status have a significant association with medication adherence in patients with chronic illness. Therefore, in Ethiopian settings and population, personal beliefs and literacy status could be addressed in the prescription of medications.

This study showed that the source of cost coverage of medications was significantly associated with levels of medication adherence, which patients who were paid out of pocket for their medication were found more likely to have poor medication adherence compared with patients who received their medication freely. This finding agrees with previous studies [42-44]. The finding indicates that patients who cover medication costs directly form out of pocket may sustain an increase in mediation costs and be forced to withdraw when the medication cost become expensive. In this study, a significant number of participants also responded that they were discontinued medications because they are not worth for the money and find it difficult to buy medicines because they are expensive. Medication adherence of patients suffers because of high drug costs [45], particularly the problem might be much higher for patients who pay out of pocket. Cost-sharing may deter clinically vulnerable patients from initiating essential medications, compromise adherence and result in treatment failure. Here, patients may benefit from healthcare insurance, which helps them access their medications with optimum pre-paid coverage cost [46, 47]. Therefore, particularly patients with chronic diseases like T2DM may benefit and could be engaged in the Ethiopian health insurance systems with an optimum pre-paid healthcare access coverage cost, which can protect them from catastrophic healthcare expenditures for their medications and treatments. Moreover, this study also showed that patients with low household incomes were found more likely to be low adherent to their medications compared to patients who had relatively high household income. This finding agrees with previous studies [42, 43, 48], which patients with low economic status and household income have the potential to withdraw medications because of affordability issues. This problem is severe in chronic illnesses and patients with comorbidities because of increased medication costs for treating additional conditions. Particularly in Ethiopian settings, most patients are with low socio-economic status [25-28]. In contrary, most patients with T2DM are with comorbid conditions [29]. Thus, this finding indicates that healthcare providers and prescribers could come up with appreciating the socio-economic status of the patients, and clear and good communication towards the affordability of the prescribed medications. The patients may also benefit from the Ethiopian community-based health insurance (CBHI) systems, which may help individuals by providing optimum pre-paid coverage costs and protect them from catastrophic expenditures.

Patients who could practice SMBG were found less likely to have low adherence to their medications compared to patients who did not practice SMBG. This finding implies that patients who practice SMBG can obtain direct feedback on the level of blood glucose and use that information to adjust their choice and help them adhere to their medications. Although the SMBG is an important tool for improving patient self-management and clinicians may use it in guiding medications [49], the current study showed that a significant proportion of patents did not practice SMBG. But the clinical significance of SMBG may depend on the patients understanding of the technical procedures, adherence to the practice, and interpretation of the results. Therefore, patients could be encouraged to practice SBMG, share their testing results with healthcare providers, and the clinicians act towards making treatment decisions [49, 50]. Further, the current study also disclosed that patients with a lower number of medications and medical conditions were found less likely to be low adherent to their medications compared with patients with a higher number of medications and medical conditions. This finding is consistent with previous studies [30, 31, 36, 37], which higher number of medications and medical conditions resulted in low medication adherence because of medication regimen complexity, medication adverse effects, the inability of patients to afford multiple medications. A higher number of medications may also contribute to the loss of the time of administration of medications. Therefore, healthcare providers, in particular prescribers, could focus on practicing with prescribing of optimum number of medications by considering the need of medication treatment of the medical conditions in patients with comorbidity. Patients also need to be highly vigilant and motivated to adhere to their multiple medications, which are necessary to treat the possible and presented comorbidities.

The current study also examined the association of medication adherence and level of glycemic control. In line with previous studies [28, 29, 51–54], majority of patients were under poor glycemic control. Consistent with the previous studies [14, 28, 39, 55], patients who had a low level of medication adherence were found more likely to have poor glycemic control. The findings may imply that poor glycemic control in the majority of Ethiopian population and settings might be related to low medication adherence. But medication adherence of patients could maximize the effectiveness of pharmaceutical therapy. Thus, patients could be recommended to adhere to their medications. Additionally, patients who could practice SMBG were found less likely to have poor glycemic control compared to patients who didn’t practice SMBG. This finding is consistent with previous studies [56-58], which indicate that SMBG can be important in adjusting the level of glycemic control by adhering to medications and taking appropriate measures to improve poor glycemic levels when there are higher blood glucose levels. This finding implies that patients could be recommended to practice SMBG. They also use the SMBG data to adjust their practice, medication adherence and communicate with their healthcare providers and use the data to act on treatment decisions. Moreover, in consistent with previous studies [59-61], patients who had normal BMI were found less likely to have poor glycemic control compared with obese patients. This relation might justify those patients with higher BMI or obesity caused to insulin resistance and in turn, obesity may result in poor glycemic control in the long term. Thus, patients with diabetes could be recommended to reduce their overweight to a normal level by different recommended daily physical activities and modification of diets. In Ethiopia, unhealth sedentary lifestyle has increased and it is among the risk factors of diabetes. Therefore, patients with T2DM could be engaged with an optimum daily physical activity and adjust their diets, and lifestyles.

Generally, this study highlighted the extent of medication adherence and its impact on glycemic control among T2DM patients with comorbidity in resource-limited settings. The findings also have an implication to take measures in the management of T2DM patients with comorbidities. It has explored the medication adherence by assessing patient-behaviors towards their medication adherence, pill/injection burdens due to other medications, and payment related factors to adhere to medications, this tries addressing potential contributors to poor medication adherence in the Ethiopian settings and populations. Indeed, the rapid rise in the prevalence and burden of diabetes mellitus in developing countries, particularly in Ethiopia, where most of the diabetes patients are with comorbid illness and low awareness of the patients towards the disease and medications could seek an urgent intervention towards ensuring medication adherence and achieving glycemic targets. The study may add some background knowledge of the practitioners and patients, and help them towards treatment decisions and modifications accordingly.

The current study has some limitations. The adherence level is determined through patients’ self-reported adherence measuring scale, which depends on the honesty and faith in the respondents and could affect the responses resulting in an over or underestimation of the adherence level of medications. Despite this limitation, we hope this study will fill the existing literature gap in the study area and add a body of knowledge to the management practice of T2DM patients with comorbidities.

Conclusion

The current study concluded that medication adherence was low and significantly associated with glycemic control of patients. Medication cost coverage, monthly income, SMBG practice, number of medications and medical conditions were found to have significant association with medication adherence. On the other hand, glycemic control was found to have a significant association with SMBG practice, level of BMI and level of medication adherence. Therefore, management interventions of T2DM patients with comorbidity should focus on improving medication adherence and other predictor variables.

Dataset: A data set used to analyze and generate the data.

(SAV)

Click here for additional data file.

16 Aug 2022

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Wanich Suksatan

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The overall quality of work by the authors was good. The researchers followed protocol and included detailed information about the process of recruitment, sampling procedures, use of proper measurement tools, data collection and analysis. However, the writing style needs adjustment. Some of the paper sections included long sentences, redundancy, and some grammar and writing errors.

Here are some of my notes on the writing and grammar issues:

-Page 3 / lines 17 to 21: Please rewrite the sentences starting from line 17 and ending in line 21

-Page 3/ Lines 23 to 26: Please rewrite the sentences starting from line 23 and ending in line 26

-Page 3/ Lines 27 to 28: Sentence starting from line 27 and ending in line 28 is not clear, please rewrite

-Page 3/ line 29: word typo, “mediation” = “medication”

-Page 4/ Lines 1 to 5:

Medication adherence in chronic diseases is influenced by patient’s personal and socio-demographic (socio-economic status, age, literacy status, cultural and personal perceptions), healthcare, and facility factors (convenience of pharmacy, medication regimen complexity, clinical characteristics, and number of medical conditions of the patients; 13–17).

-Page 4/ Lines 6 to 7: Please rewrite the sentence.

-Page 4/ Lines 9 to 13: Sentence too long, please rewrite

-Page 4/ Line 17: Please clarify “lower glycemic control”, do you mean “poor or bad glycemic control”

-Page 4/ Line 20 to 23: Please rewrite sentence and separate the sentences at line 21 at “there is no any study ….”

-Page 4/ Lines 24 to 26: Sentences unclear, please rewrite to make it clear.

-Page 5/ Lines 11 to 12: Please rewrite sentence, “The study participants were adults, 18 years or older, diagnosed with T2DM, and volunteered to participate in the study.”

-Page 5/ Lines 27 to 29: Please move sentence to line 24 after sentence ending in line 24 with “… in the setting.”

-Page 6/ Lines 8 to 12: Please rewrite the sentence. Multiple items were repeated in the same sentence.

-Page 11/ Lines 9 to 12: Sentence too long. Please rewrite sentence.

-Page 11/ Lines 12 to 15: Sentence does not make sense. It sounds like low glycemic control can “enhance negative consequences …” Please rewrite sentence to make it clear.

Please be consistent when describing glycemic control: low glycemic control Vs. poor glycemic control.

-Page 11/ Lines 21 to 25: Sentence is repetitive and too long.

Therefore, I believe that the manuscript needs revision for writing. Otherwise, I believe the researchers provided a good and strong study that would add to the diabetes literature because according to their introduction, the literature lacks studies glycemic control and medication adherence information among Ethiopian individuals with type 2 diabetes.

Reviewer #2: Comments to authors

Thank you for an opportunity to review this article. This study aims to identify factors related to medical adherence in patients with type 2 diabetes in Ethiopia. I have some comments as following;

Introduction:

The authors provide the prevalence of diabetes worldwide and in the Ethiopia. However, the introduction should be concise.

Methodology:

Regarding sampling, it is unclear the number of participants from each hospital is unequal. More explanation is required. Did the laboratory test was extracted from medical chart? Who was in charge for data collection?

Regarding the study setting, it might be a good idea to add a short introduction of the study setting to readers at the first part of the methods section,

In outcome measures, it was redundant in explanation of the GMAS instrument. I would rather move GMAS paragraph to outcome measure part. And write; Medication adherence was measured by using GMAS…… to measure how ……….. I think no need for operational definition in the article because it should be included in the instrument explanation. Have the authors asked for permission in using the GMAS instrument?

Results: No comments

Discussion:

The novelty of the findings relative to prior literature should be identified. All factors are common in the medical adherence among diabetes patients and have been published. Discussion should be provided in the context of Ethiopia; why these factors related to medical adherence among Ethiopia population and the study settings.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Submitted filename: Comments to authors.doc

Click here for additional data file.

22 Aug 2022

Responses to the review’s comments

Dear PLoS ONE Academic Editor,

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of the manuscript and we would also like to thank your constructive and fruitful comments and suggestions on our paper (Manuscript ID: PONE-D-22-20901). We are very concerned and combined all the suggested comments provided, which we believe that strengthened the paper and we hope this render our paper to be considered for publication in your reputed journal. We appreciate the time and effort that you and the reviewers dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript and are grateful for the insightful comments on and valuable improvements to this paper.

We authors would like to let you know that all comments and concerns raised by both academic editors and reviewers are fully addressed and indicated with track changes in the main document and a point-by-point response letter for the editors and reviewers. Moreover, we did our best changes and corrections on this revised manuscript. All the changes and corrections are indicated with track changes in the main document. All page and line numbers refer to the revised manuscript file with tracked changes.

Comments from the editor:

1#.... Journal requirements:

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming.

Author reply: Thank you for your recommendations to assure adherence to the manuscript template requirements of the journal. Considering to your recommendation, we have adjusted and ensured it accordingly. All files including the main documents, tables and figures are incorporated according to the journal requirements.

Response to Reviewers’ comments:

Reviewer #1

#1... The overall quality of work by the authors was good. The researchers followed protocol and included detailed information about the process of recruitment, sampling procedures, use of proper measurement tools, data collection and analysis. However, the writing style needs adjustment. Some of the paper sections included long sentences, redundancy, and some grammar and writing errors.

Author response: We authors are very thankful for your deep concerns and suggestions. We, therefore, accepted the recommendations and made editing and corrections for the whole parts you mentioned. We also go through the whole parts of the manuscript to correct the long sentences, redundancy, and existing grammar and writing errors in the manuscript that indicated with track changes. The manuscript changes have tracked and all the raised issues, changes and responses are indicated with those line numbers in the manuscript with tracked changes. We hope that you find improved.

Specific comments:

#1.... -Page 3 / lines 17 to 21: Please rewrite the sentences starting from line 17 and ending in line 21

Author reply: Thank you very much and we had revised the sentence, and we hope that you found that it has improved, Page 3, lines 16-19.

#2.... -Page 3/ Lines 23 to 26: Please rewrite the sentences starting from line 23 and ending in line 26

Author reply: Thank you very much and we had revised the sentence. Hopefully, you has found that it has improved, Page 3, lines 21-23.

#3…-Page 3/ Lines 27 to 28: Sentence starting from line 27 and ending in line 28 is not clear, please rewrite

Author reply: Thank you very much and we had revised the sentence, hopefully, you found that it has improved, Page 3, lines 24-25.

#4.... -Page 3/ line 29: word typo, “mediation” = “medication”

Author reply: Thank you very much, and we made it correct, page 3 line 26.

#5…-Page 4/ Lines 1 to 5: Medication adherence in chronic diseases is influenced by patient’s personal and socio-demographic (socio-economic status, age, literacy status, cultural and personal perceptions), healthcare, and facility factors (convenience of pharmacy, medication regimen complexity, clinical characteristics, and number of medical conditions of the patients; 13–17).

Author reply: Thank you very much for the comment, and we had revised the sentence. Hope you have found that it has improved, Page 3, lines 26-29.

#6…-Page 4/ Lines 6 to 7: Please rewrite the sentence.

Author reply: Thank you for an important comment, and we had revised the sentence, Page 3, lines 29 and page 4 line 1.

#7…-Page 4/ Lines 9 to 13: Sentence too long, please rewrite

Author reply: Thank you very much for your valuable comments, and we had revised the sentence, Page 4, lines 3-7.

#8…-Page 4/ Line 17: Please clarify “lower glycemic control”, do you mean “poor or bad glycemic control”

Author reply: We the authors thank you very much for the important comments. We had directly revised it by taking “poor glycemic control”. Thank you in advance again for your valuable comments, Page 4, line 12.

#9…. -Page 4/ Line 20 to 23: Please rewrite sentence and separate the sentences at line 21 at “there is no any study ….”

Author reply: We are grateful for the comments provided to improve the quality of the paper. Taking your positive comments, we had revised the sentence and separate it. hopefully it has improved, page 4, lines 14-16

#10…. -Page 4/ Lines 24 to 26: Sentences unclear, please rewrite to make it clear.

Author reply: Thank you for making the sentence clear and rewrite it. The comments improve the quality of the paper. Taking your positive comments, we had corrected the sentence. And hopefully it has improved and clear, Page 4, lines 18-21.

#11…. -Page 5/ Lines 11 to 12: Please rewrite sentence, “The study participants were adults, 18 years or older, diagnosed with T2DM, and volunteered to participate in the study.”

Author reply: Thank you very much for the comments to improve the quality of the paper. Taking your positive comments, we had rewritten the sentence. And hopefully it has improved and clear, Page 5, line 6.

#12…. -Page 5/ Lines 27 to 29: Please move sentence to line 24 after sentence ending in line 24 with “… in the setting.”

Author reply: Thank you for an interesting comment, which make it coherent and readable. Considering your valuable comment, we had revised by moving it to the provided space, Page 5, lines 20-22.

#13…-Page 6/ Lines 8 to 12: Please rewrite the sentence. Multiple items were repeated in the same sentence.

Author reply: Thank you very much for your comments to rewrite and correct the repeated items in the sentence. By considering your comments and suggestion, we had revised and rewrite the sentence. Hope you found that it has improved, Page 6, lines 4-8.

#14…. -Page 11/ Lines 9 to 12: Sentence too long. Please rewrite sentence.

Author reply: Thank you for such valuable comment, and we had revised and rewrite the sentence, Page 11, lines 2-6.

#15…-Page 11/ Lines 12 to 15: Sentence does not make sense. It sounds like low glycemic control can “enhance negative consequences …” Please rewrite sentence to make it clear.

Author reply: Thank you very much and taking your positive comments, we wrote the sentence. And hopefully it has improved and clear, Page 11, lines 6-8.

#16…-Please be consistent when describing glycemic control: low glycemic control Vs. poor glycemic control.

Author reply: Thank you for such an important comment. By considering your comments suggestion, we had revised and described glycemic control with poor glycemic control.

#17…-Page 11/ Lines 21 to 25: Sentence is repetitive and too long.

Author reply: Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions to rewrite and correct the repeated words in the sentence and summarized the long sentence. By considering your comments and suggestion, we had revised and summarized the long sentence, Page 11, lines 12-16.

Reviewer #2

Comments to authors

Thank you for an opportunity to review this article. This study aims to identify factors related to medical adherence in patients with type 2 diabetes in Ethiopia. I have some comments as following;

Introduction:

#1… The authors provide the prevalence of diabetes worldwide and in the Ethiopia. However, the introduction should be concise.

Author reply: We authors are very grateful for the concerns and recommendations you raised to concise the introduction. Considering your valuable comments and suggestions, we revised the introduction section and tried to concise. The changes are found with tracks in the manuscript with track changes. We hope, you have found that it has improved.

Methodology:

#2… Regarding sampling, it is unclear the number of participants from each hospital is unequal. More explanation is required.

Author reply: Thank you for your comments and concerns regarding the number of the participants involved from each hospital. As it was mentioned in the section, participants from each hospital were recruited in the study based on the number of patients with T2DM. It was just to take a representative sample from each hospital. The number of patients with T2DM in each hospital was taken from records of the previous three follow-up months in the settings. Taking your constructive comments and suggestions, we have revised this section and tried to cleat it, page 5, lines 17-22. Hopefully, you have found that it has improved.

#3… Did the laboratory test was extracted from medical chart?

Author reply: Thank you very much to your comments to clear the data collection process regarding laboratory tests. As we sated in the data collection sections, secondary data like laboratory test records were extracted from medical records of the patients. Yes, as you said laboratory test of the participants was extracted from medical records of the patients. In all of the selected hospitals, medical records of the participants are available in physical medical chart. Therefore, laboratory test results of the participants were extracted from printed laboratory results in the medical chart of the patients.

#4…. Who was in charge for data collection?

Author reply: Thank you for your comments and questions regarding data collectors. As we tried to mention in the data collection producers and instruments’ section, the data was collected by pharmacists and nurses from the selected hospitals after they had received training regarding to the purpose of the study, data collection procedures, the nature of the data collection instruments and ethical aspects of the study. They had involved as a data collector in voluntarily. Considering your questions and concerns, we have revised and clear the statements, page 6, lines 10-12.

#5…Regarding the study setting, it might be a good idea to add a short introduction of the study setting to readers at the first part of the methods section,

Author reply: Thank you for your important information which can add some basic information regarding the study area to the readers. Bay taking your valuable suggestions, we have revised the section and included some basic background information, page 4, lines 25-29 & page 5 lines 1-5.

#6… In outcome measures, it was redundant in explanation of the GMAS instrument. I would rather move GMAS paragraph to outcome measure part. And write; Medication adherence was measured by using GMAS…… to measure how ……….. I think no need for operational definition in the article because it should be included in the instrument explanation.

Author reply: Thank you to your suggestion to avoid the redundancy. We have totally accepted your important suggestions and revised accordingly. We had also avoided the operational definitions and included in the instrument explanation. The changes are presented in the tracked manuscript.

#7…Have the authors asked for permission in using the GMAS instrument?

Author reply: Thank you for your positive and important concerns and suggestions. We can ask and access the copyright permission of the GMAS instrument if the paper will be accepted for publication. We hope, we can do it and will happen if the paper will be accepted for publication. Thank you in advance for your positive comments and concerns.

Discussion

#8… The novelty of the findings relative to prior literature should be identified. All factors are common in the medical adherence among diabetes patients and have been published. Discussion should be provided in the context of Ethiopia; why these factors related to medical adherence among Ethiopia population and the study settings.

Author reply: We the authors are grateful for the comments provided to improve the quality of the paper. Taking your positive comments, we have tried to incorporated novelty of the findings and revised the discussion on the context of Ethiopian population and settings. Hopefully, you have found that it has improved. All the changes are presented in the tracked manuscript.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

6 Sep 2022

7 Sep 2022

Responses to the review’s comments

Dear PlOS ONE Academic Editor,

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of the manuscript and we would also like to thank your constructive and fruitful comments and suggestions on our paper (Manuscript ID: PONE-D-22-20901R1). We are very concerned and combined all the suggested comments provided, which we believe that strengthened the paper and we hope this render our paper to be considered for publication in your reputed journal. We appreciate the time and effort that you and the reviewers dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript and are grateful for the insightful comments on and valuable improvements to this paper.

We authors would like to let you know that all comments and concerns raised by both academic editors and reviewers are fully addressed and indicated with track changes in the main document and a point-by-point response letter for the editors and reviewers.

Comments from the editor:

1#.... Journal requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Author reply: Thank you for your comments and recommendations to ensure that the reference is complete and correct.

We have checked the whole references using Google scholar searching. Consequently, we have found some errors on reference 13. Accordingly, we had made it correct and we also include the DOI and indicate the change with track changes. In addition, when we have searched reference number 32 on Google scholar, we have not found it and then we have looked the original article on google searching. Now we ensured it was correctly cited. We also include the DOI. Other than these two references, we have not found any error on our best searching, all listed references are found on Google scholar. However, in case any retracted reference is still included, it is not doing purposely and it might be unknowingly. If so, it would be my pleasure if you indicate me which one is retracted. Thank you in advance for your hard work and positive comments.

Additional Editor Comments:

2#.......Based on the reviewer's opinions, I agreed with the reviewer 1 that some minor issues need to be revised before accepted to publish.

Author response: We authors are very thankful for your concerns and suggestions. We had revised the raised issues and the changes are tracked. The manuscript changes have tracked and all the raised issues, changes and responses are indicated with those line numbers in the manuscript with tracked changes. We hope that you have found it has improved.

Response to Reviewers’ comments:

Reviewer #1

I would like to thank the authors for their consideration of my comments and working on it accordingly. However, I would suggest that some of the parts detected in the comments were not properly addressed. Specifically, I would like from the authors to address the following suggestions:

#1... Page 3/ Lines 26-29: The sentence included the word "patients" three times which is not needed. Also, the end of the sentence to write "are factors that influence medication adherence ..."

Author response: We authors are very thankful for your deep concerns and suggestions. We have accepted the recommendations and made editing and corrections for the whole parts you mentioned. The manuscript changes have tracked and all the raised issues, changes and responses are indicated with those line numbers in the manuscript with tracked changes. We hope that you have found that it has improved. Page 3/ Lines 26-29.

#2.... Page 3/ Line 29, Page 4/ lines 1-3: I would suggest choosing the single percentage or the range of percentages if I am allowed to.

Author reply: Thank you very much. It was to implicate rate of medication nonadherence to patients with comorbidity and patients with T2DM, respectively. But based on your recommendation and it was already mentioned earlier, we had revised and choose the one with ranges of percentages. Page 3/lines 29 and page 4/lines 1-2.

#3…Page 5/ Lines 6-8: You could start the sentence with: to be included in the study, participants should be adults (aged 18 years or older), diagnosed with diabetes, and are diagnosed with at least one comorbidity.

Author reply: Thank you very much for your positive comments for improving the quality of paper. Base on your kind recommendation, we had revised the sentence. Page 5/lines 5-6.

#4.... Page 4/ line 6, Page 11/ Line 7: the sentence "enhance negative consequences" does not make sense. From my point of view, you cannot enhance negative things. Therefore, I would suggest changing to possibly "increase the risk for negative consequences."

Author reply: Thank you for your positive comments. We made it correct and revised accordingly, page 4/line 4 and page 11/line 5.

Generally, we the authors are grateful for the comments provided to improve the quality of the paper. We also have a great appreciation for your efforts and assistance for improving the paper. Thank you in advance.

Reviewer #2

Authors has rewritten all issues according to suggestion. This study is very interesting and will add some valuable knowledge in the diabetes study.

Author reply: We the authors are grateful for the comments provided to improve the quality of the paper. We also have a great appreciation for your efforts and assistance for improving the paper. Thank you in advance.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

8 Sep 2022

Medication adherence and its impact on glycemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients with comorbidity: A multicenter cross-sectional study in Northwest Ethiopia

PONE-D-22-20901R2

Dear Dr. Sendekie,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Wanich Suksatan

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Congratulations for successful amendments!

12 Sep 2022

PONE-D-22-20901R2

Medication adherence and its impact on glycemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients with comorbidity: A multicenter cross-sectional study in Northwest Ethiopia

Dear Dr. Sendekie:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Wanich Suksatan

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Table 1

Socio-demographic and clinical characteristics of T2DM patients with comorbidity at hospitals in Northwest Ethiopia from January to March, 2022 (N = 403).

Socio-demographic variables		Frequency (%)	Mean (±SD)
Sex	Male	221 (54.8)
	Female	182(45.2)
Age in years		-	55(±10.8)
Weight in Kg.		-	65.6(±8.3)
Residence	Urban	237(58.8)
	Rural	166(41.2)
Educational status	Unable to read and write	55(13.6)
	Primary school	133(33)
	Secondary school	150(37.2)
	University or college and above	65(16.1)
Occupation	Farmer	74(18.4)
	Government employee	103(25.6)
	Self-employed	98(24.3)
	Student	43(10.7)
	Unemployed	63(15.6)
	Others	22(5.5)
Monthly income (ETH.Birr)			3775.4(±1627.2)
Source of medication cost coverage	Health insurance	233(57.8)
	Out of pocket	122(30.3)
	Free	48(11.9)
Body mass index (Kg/M2)	Low	34 (8.4)	24.6(±11.2)
	Normal	235 (58.3)
	Over weight	56 (13.9)
	Obese	78 (19.4)
Duration since T2DM diagnosis (years)	1–5	30(7.4)	13.4(±7.8)
	6–10	141(35)
	11–20	187(46.4)
	> 20	45(11.2)
Cigarette Smoking status	Currently smoker	69(17.1)
	Previously smoker	97(24.1)
	Non-smoker at all	237(58.8)
Alcohol drinking habit	No	182(45.2)
	Yes	221(54.8)
Self-monitoring of blood glucose	Yes	125(31)
	No	278(69)
Family history of T2DM	Yes	263(65.3)
	No	140(34.7)
Physical activity	Sedentary	181(44.9)
	Moderate	138(34.2)
	Vigorous	84(20.8)
Medical conditions (comorbidities and complications)	Hypertension	287(71.2)
	Dyslipidemia	184 (45.7)
	Macrovascular complications	71 (17.6)
	Hypoglycemia in recent time	52 (12.9)
	Microvascular complications	30 (7.4)
	Renal disorders	22 (5.5)
	Diabetes ketoacidosis	21(5.2)
	Retroviral infection	11 (2.7)
	Others*	24(6)
Number of medical conditions		-	2.8(±0.8)
Laboratory parameters
Fasting blood glucose (mg/dl) level			176.0(±51.4)
Systolic blood pressure (mmHG)			137.3(±11.6)
Diastolic blood pressure (mmHG)			81.3(±9.5)
Serum creatinine level (mg/dl)			1.9(±9.2)
Total cholesterol level			196(±49.6)
Total glyceride level			168.6(±45.6)

Others*; Bacterial infections, thyrotoxicosis, bronchial asthma, malaria, skin disorders.

Table 2

Distribution of medications used to the treatment of T2DM patients with comorbidity.

Medications		Frequency (%)	Mean (±SD)
Antidiabetic medications	Metformin plus insulin	131(32.5)
	Metformin plus glibenclamide	76(18.9)
	Metformin	74(18.4)
	Metformin plus glibenclamide plus insulin	63(15.6)
	Insulin	59(14.6)
Types of insulin regimens	NPH	189(46.9)
	Premixed insulin	68(16.9)
Antihypertensive and cardiovascular agents	Enalapril	98(24.3)
	Amlodipine	66(16.4)
	Hydrochlorothiazide	56(13.9)
	Atenolol	19 (4.7)
	Metoprolol	15 (3.7)
	Nifedipine	12(3)
	Furosemide	7 (1.7)
Lipid-lowering agents	Atorvastatin	143(35.5)
	Simvastatin	48(11.9)
Aspirin (ASA)		67(16.6)
Amitriptyline		23 (5.7)
TDF/3TC/DTG		11(2.7)
Warfarin		6 (1.5)
Propyl thiouracil		5 (1.2)
Salbutamol plus beclomethasone		5 (1.2)
Others*		19(1.6)
Number of medications			4.2(±1.4)
Average daily dose of insulin (Unit)			17.2(±5.9)
Average daily dose of metformin (mg)			1356.8(±1428.9)
Average daily dose of glibenclamide (mg)			13.2(±5.1)
Average daily dose of Atorvastatin (mg)			43.2(±30.8)
Average daily dose of Simvastatin (mg)			26.1(±28.1)

TDF, Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate; 3TC, Lamivudine; DTG, Dolutegravir; others

* include antibiotics, gastrointestinal drugs and antipains.

Table 3

Medication adherence with respect to GMAS measuring items.

	GMAS measuring item descriptions	Adherence response levels n (%)				Mean (±SD) Score
		Always	Mostly	Some times	Never
1.	Difficulty in remember to take medications	-	8[19]	258(64)	137(34)	2.32(±0.5)
2.	Forgetting medications due to busy schedules, travel and other events	-	30(7.4)	253(62.8)	120(29.8)	2.22(±0.6)
3.	Discontinuing medications when feeling well	-	109(27)	192(47.6)	102(25.3)	1.98(±0.7)
4.	Stopping taking medications due to adverse effects	-	4(1)	338(83.9)	61(15.1)	2.14(±0.4)
5.	Stop medications without telling a doctor	-	49(12.2)	240(59.6)	114(28.3)	2.16(±0.6)
6.	Discontinuing medications due to other medicines for additional diseases	1(0.2)	81(20.1)	254(63)	67(16.6)	1.96(0.6)
7.	Find it hassle to remember medications due to medication regimen complexity	2(0.5)	61(15.1)	279(69.2)	61(15.1)	1.99(±0.6)
8.	Missing medicines due to progression of disease and addition of new medicines in the last month	-	85(21.1)	245(60.8)	73(18.1)	1.97(±0.6)
9.	Altering medication regimen, dose and frequency	-	123(30.5)	214(53.1)	66(16.4)	1.86(±0.7)
10.	Discontinuing medications because they are not worth for the money	1(0.2)	124(30.8)	251(62.3)	27(6.7)	1.75(±0.6)
11.	Find it difficult to buy medicines because they are expensive	1(0.2)	143(35.5)	226(56.1)	33(8.2)	1.72(±0.6)
Overall GMAS mean score						22.08(4.4)

Note: Always = 0; mostly = 1; sometimes = 2; never = 3.

Table 4

Determinants of medication adherence in patients T2DM patients with comorbidity.

Variables		Adherence level		95% CI		P-value
		Low	High	COR	AOR
Source of medication cost coverage	Health insurance	174	59	2.713(1.433–5.139)	3.981(0.777–12.036)	0.003*
	Out of pocket	111	11	9.284(4.01–21.49)	10.593(2.682–41.835)
	Free	25	23	1	1
Monthly income (ETH.Birr)	< 1500	55	5	11.0(4.057–29.825)	13.896(2.598–46.199)	<0.001*
	1500–2999	46	5	9.20(3.370–25.116)	9.369(2.940–25.785)
	3000–4999	160	34	4.706(2.737–8.092)	5.095(2.549–13.308)
	≥ 5000	49	49	1	1
SMBG practice	Yes	78	47	0.329(0.203–0.532)	0.266(0.117–0.604)	0.002*
	No	232	46	1	1
Physical activity	Sedentary	151	30	1.678(0.893–3.151)	2.560(0.841–7.794)	0.053
	Moderate	96	42	0.762(0.413–1.406)	0.809(0.280–2.335)
	Vigorous	63	21	1	1
Hypoglycemia	Yes	30	22	0.346(0.188–0.636)	0.662(0.157–2.793)	0.574
	No	280	71	1	1
Antidiabetic medications	Metformin plus glibenclamide plus insulin	53	10	0.954(0.358–2.542)	0.660(0.169–2.581)	0.410
	Metformin plus insulin	93	38	0.441(0.197–0.984)	0.355(0.120–1.051)
	Metformin pus glibenclamide	64	12	0.96(0.375–2.458)	-
	Metformin	50	24	0.375(0.159–0.887)	-
	Insulin	50	9	1	1
Types of insulin regimens	NPH	153	36	2.033 (1.089–3.795)	1.220(0.453–3.287)	0.695
	Premixed	46	22	1	1
Number of medications	≤ 3	94	55	0.077(0.023–0.255)	0.068(0.004–0.813)	0.014*
	4–5	149	35	0.191(0.057–0.642)	0.160(0.010–2.520)
	≥ 6	67	3	1	1
Number of comorbidities	2	127	66	0.206(0.060–0.703)	0.307(0.026–0.437)	0.018*
	3	117	22	0.570(0.159–2.039)	0.190(0.054–8.927)
	4	38	2	2.036(0.319–13.006)	1.514(0.129–8.344)
	≥ 5	28	3	1	1

AOR; Adjusted odds ratio, COR; crude odds ratio, CI; confidence interval

* indicated p value < 0.05.

Table 5

Association of medication adherence and other predicted variables with glycemic control in T2DM patients with comorbidity.

Variables		Glycemic control		95% CI		P-value
		Poor	Good	COR	AOR
Medication cost coverage	Health insurance	169	64	1.886(0.993–3.584)	0.231(0.021–2.513)	0.296
	Out of pocket	104	18	4.127(1.927–8.836)	0.694(0.043–11.113)
	Free	28	20	1	1
Monthly income (ETH.Birr)	< 1500	51	9	4.617(2.048–10.408)	1.354(0.114–16.046)	0.135
	1501–2999	42	9	3.802(1.670–8.656)	1.142(0.135–3.308)
	3000–4999	154	40	3.137(1.849–5.322)	2.351(0.256–21.616)
	≥ 5000	54	44	1	1
SMBG practice	Yes	67	58	0.217(0.135–0.350)	0.319(0.056–0.829)	0.020*
	No	234	44	1	1
BMI (K/m2)	Low	27	7	0.380(0.122–1.186)	0.435(0.014–1.465)	0.013*
	Normal	161	74	0.215(0.094–0.489)	0.280(0.002–0.474)
	Overweight	42	14	0.296(0.111–0.791)	0.168(0.005–6.249)
	Obese	71	7	1	1
Physical activity	Sedentary	140	41	0.866(0.459–1.636)	0.464(0.037–5.891)	0.823
	Moderate	94	44	0.542(0.285–1.030)	0.501(0.046–5.437)
	Vigorous	67	17	1	1
Hypoglycemia	Yes	29	23	0.366 (0.201–0.669)	1.656(0.192–14.310)	0.647
	No	272	79	1	1
Hypertension	Yes	222	65	1.600(0.991–2.581)	0.978(0.143–6.684)	0.982
	No	79	37	1	1
Antidiabetic mediations	Metformin plus glibenclamide plus insulin	51	12	0.974(0.393–2.415)	2.023(0.147–27.786)	0.878
	Metformin plus insulin	90	41	0.503(0.237–1.067)	0.652(0.071–6.009)
	Metformin pus glibenclamide	64	12	1.222(0.497–3.005)	-
	Metformin	48	26	0.423(0.188–0.952)	-
	Insulin	48	11	1	1
Types of insulin regimens	NPH	152	37	2.876 (1.575–5.250)	3.249(0.534–19.754)	0.201
	Premixed	40	28	1	1
Lipid lowering agents	Atorvastatin	116	27	1.953(0.932–4.094)	4.249(0.706–25.562)	0.114
	Simvastatin	33	15	1	1
Number of medications	≤ 3	95	54	0.227(0.101–0.510)	0.076(0.001–4.215)	0.321
	4–5	144	40	0.465(0.206–1.050)	0.227(0.027–1.911)
	≥ 6	62	8	1	1
Number of medical conditions	2	131	62	0.616(0.252–1.507)	5.309(0.384–79.787)	0.113
	3	112	27	1.210(0.472–3.100)	5.858(0.415–82.675)
	4	34	6	1.653(0.493–5.538)	1.336(0.134–13.279)
	≥ 5	24	7	1	1
Level of mediation Adherence	High	17	76	0.020(0.011–0.040)	0.003(0.000–0.113)	0.002*
	Low	284	26	1	1

AOR; Adjusted odds ratio, COR; crude odds ratio, CI; confidence interval

* indicated p value < 0.05.