Effectiveness of a combined strategy to improve therapeutic compliance and degree of control among patients with hypercholesterolaemia: a randomised clinical trial

mHealth Apps Using Behavior Change Techniques to Self-report Data: Systematic Review

Background

The popularization of mobile health (mHealth) apps for public health or medical care purposes has transformed human life substantially, improving lifestyle behaviors and chronic condition management.

Objective

This review aimed to identify behavior change techniques (BCTs) commonly used in mHealth, assess their effectiveness based on the evidence reported in interventions and reviews to highlight the most appropriate techniques to design an optimal strategy to improve adherence to data reporting, and provide recommendations for future interventions and research.

Methods

We performed a systematic review of studies published between 2010 and 2021 in relevant scientific databases to identify and analyze mHealth interventions using BCTs that evaluated their effectiveness in terms of user adherence. Search terms included a mix of general (eg, data, information, and adherence), computer science (eg, mHealth and BCTs), and medicine (eg, personalized medicine) terms.

Results

This systematic review included 24 studies and revealed that the most frequently used BCTs in the studies were feedback and monitoring (n=20), goals and planning (n=14), associations (n=14), shaping knowledge (n=12), and personalization (n=7). However, we found mixed effectiveness of the techniques in mHealth outcomes, having more effective than ineffective outcomes in the evaluation of apps implementing techniques from the feedback and monitoring, goals and planning, associations, and personalization categories, but we could not infer causality with the results and suggest that there is still a need to improve the use of these and many common BCTs for better outcomes.

Conclusions

Personalization, associations, and goals and planning techniques were the most used BCTs in effective trials regarding adherence to mHealth apps. However, they are not necessarily the most effective since there are studies that use these techniques and do not report significant results in the proposed objectives; there is a notable overlap of BCTs within implemented app components, suggesting a need to better understand best practices for applying (a combination of) such techniques and to obtain details on the specific BCTs used in mHealth interventions. Future research should focus on studies with longer follow-up periods to determine the effectiveness of mHealth interventions on behavior change to overcome the limited evidence in the current literature, which has mostly small-sized and single-arm experiments with a short follow-up period.

Systematic Review of RCTs Assessing the Effectiveness of mHealth Interventions to Improve Statin Medication Adherence: Using the Behaviour-Change Technique Taxonomy to Identify the Techniques That Improve Adherence

Statin non-adherence is a common problem in the management of cardiovascular disease (CVD), increasing patient morbidity and mortality. Mobile health (mHealth) interventions may be a scalable way to improve medication adherence. The objectives of this review were to assess the literature testing mHealth interventions for statin adherence and to identify the Behaviour-Change Techniques (BCTs) employed by effective and ineffective interventions. A systematic search was conducted of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) measuring the effectiveness of mHealth interventions to improve statin adherence against standard of care in those who had been prescribed statins for the primary or secondary prevention of CVD, published in English (1 January 2000-17 July 2020). For included studies, relevant data were extracted, the BCTs used in the trial arms were coded, and a quality assessment made using the Risk of Bias 2 (RoB2) questionnaire. The search identified 17 relevant studies. Twelve studies demonstrated a significant improvement in adherence in the mHealth intervention trial arm, and five reported no impact on adherence. Automated phone messages were the mHealth delivery method most frequently used in effective interventions. Studies including more BCTs were more effective. The BCTs most frequently associated with effective interventions were "Goal setting (behaviour)", "Instruction on how to perform a behaviour", and "Credible source". Other effective techniques were "Information about health consequences", "Feedback on behaviour", and "Social support (unspecified)". This review found moderate, positive evidence of the effect of mHealth interventions on statin adherence. There are four primary recommendations for practitioners using mHealth interventions to improve statin adherence: use multifaceted interventions using multiple BCTs, consider automated messages as a digital delivery method from a credible source, provide instructions on taking statins, and set adherence goals with patients. Further research should assess the optimal frequency of intervention delivery and investigate the generalisability of these interventions across settings and demographics.

Mobile phone-based interventions for improving adherence to medication prescribed for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in adults

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a major cause of disability and mortality globally. Premature fatal and non-fatal CVD is considered to be largely preventable through the control of risk factors by lifestyle modifications and preventive medication. Lipid-lowering and antihypertensive drug therapies for primary prevention are cost-effective in reducing CVD morbidity and mortality among high-risk people and are recommended by international guidelines. However, adherence to medication prescribed for the prevention of CVD can be poor. Approximately 9% of CVD cases in the EU are attributed to poor adherence to vascular medications. Low-cost, scalable interventions to improve adherence to medications for the primary prevention of CVD have potential to reduce morbidity, mortality and healthcare costs associated with CVD.

OBJECTIVES

To establish the effectiveness of interventions delivered by mobile phone to improve adherence to medication prescribed for the primary prevention of CVD in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two other databases on 7 January 2020. We also searched two clinical trials registers on 5 February 2020. We searched reference lists of relevant papers. We applied no language or date restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials investigating interventions delivered wholly or partly by mobile phones to improve adherence to cardiovascular medications prescribed for the primary prevention of CVD. We only included trials with a minimum of one-year follow-up in order that the outcome measures related to longer-term, sustained medication adherence behaviours and outcomes. Eligible comparators were usual care or control groups receiving no mobile phone-delivered component of the intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The main outcomes of interest were objective measures of medication adherence (blood pressure (BP) and cholesterol), CVD events, and adverse events. We contacted study authors for further information when this was not reported.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 14 trials with 25,633 randomised participants. Participants were recruited from community-based primary and tertiary care or outpatient clinics. The interventions varied widely from those delivered solely through short messaging service (SMS) to those involving a combination of modes of delivery, such as SMS in addition to healthcare worker training, face-to-face counselling, electronic pillboxes, written materials, and home blood pressure monitors. Some interventions only targeted medication adherence, while others additionally targeted lifestyle changes such as diet and exercise. Due to heterogeneity in the nature and delivery of the interventions and study populations, we reported most results narratively, with the exception of two trials which were similar enough to meaningfully pool in meta-analyses. The body of evidence for the effect of mobile phone-based interventions on objective outcomes of adherence (BP and cholesterol) was of low certainty, due to most trials being at high risk of bias, and inconsistency in outcome effects. Two trials were at low risk of bias. Among five trials (total study enrolment: 5441 participants) recording low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), two studies found evidence for a small beneficial intervention effect on reducing LDL-C (-5.30 mg/dL, 95% confidence interval (CI) -8.30 to -2.30; and -9.20 mg/dL, 95% CI -17.70 to -0.70). The other three studies found results varying from a small reduction (-7.7 mg/dL) to a small increase in LDL-C (0.77 mg/dL). All of which had wide confidence intervals that included no effect. Across 13 studies (25,166 participants) measuring systolic blood pressure, effect estimates ranged from a large reduction (MD -12.45 mmHg, 95% CI -15.02 to -9.88) to a small increase (MD 2.80 mmHg, 95% CI 0.30 to 5.30). We found a similar range of effect estimates for diastolic BP, ranging from -12.23 mmHg (95% CI 14.03 to -10.43) to 1.64 mmHg (95% CI -0.55 to 3.83) (11 trials, 19,716 participants). Four trials showed intervention benefits for systolic and diastolic BP with confidence intervals excluding no effect, and among these were all three of the trials evaluating self-monitoring of blood pressure with mobile phone-based telemedicine. The fourth trial included SMS and provider support (with additional varied features). Seven studies (19,185 participants) reported 'controlled' BP as an outcome, and intervention effect estimates varied from negligible effects (odds ratio (OR) 1.01, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.34) to large improvements in BP control (OR 2.41, 95% CI: 1.57 to 3.68). The three trials of clinician training or decision support combined with SMS (with additional varied features) had confidence intervals encompassing benefits and harms, with point estimates close to zero. Pooled analyses of the two trials of interventions solely delivered through SMS were indicative of little or no beneficial intervention effect on systolic BP (MD -1.55 mmHg, 95% CI -3.36 to 0.25; I2 = 0%) and small increases in controlled BP (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.65; I2 = 0%). Based on four studies (12,439 participants), there was very low-certainty evidence (downgraded twice for imprecision and once for risk of bias) relating to the intervention effect on combined (fatal and non-fatal) CVD events. Two studies (2535 participants) provided low-certainty evidence for the effect of the intervention on cognitive outcomes, with little or no difference between trial arms for perceived quality of care and satisfaction with treatment. There was moderate-certainty evidence (downgraded due to risk of bias) that the interventions did not cause harm, based on six studies (8285 participants). Three studies reported no adverse events attributable to the intervention. One study reported no difference between groups in experience of adverse effects of statins, and that no participants reported intervention-related adverse events. One study stated that potential side effects were similar between groups. One study reported a similar number of deaths in each arm, but did not provide further information relating to potential adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is low-certainty evidence on the effects of mobile phone-delivered interventions to increase adherence to medication prescribed for the primary prevention of CVD. Trials of BP self-monitoring with mobile-phone telemedicine support reported modest benefits. One trial at low risk of bias reported modest reductions in LDL cholesterol but no benefits for BP. There is moderate-certainty evidence that these interventions do not result in harm. Further trials of these interventions are warranted.

Review of normal gastrointestinal tract, ulcerative colitis, proctitis and rectal medication adherence

The gastrointestinal (GI) tract has a number of functions-ingestion, digestion, absorption and elimination. When the GI tract is working normally, it is efficient. However, this can change when disease, such as inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) occurs. IBD is a long-term relapsing and remitting autoimmune disease; it incorporates ulcerative colitis (UC). In UC, part or all the mucosa lining the rectum and colon becomes inflamed and ulcerated. UC that affects the rectum only is called proctitis. Effective treatment is essential. It is better to target the rectal mucosa directly in proctitis, using topical rectal medications in enemas or suppositories, as these have fewer side-effects and resolve symptoms more quickly than systemic drugs. However, patients may not feel clear about aspects of their IBD care and can find it difficult to initiate and comply with treatment and maintenance regimens. Nurses need to educate and support them to achieve optimal therapeutic outcomes in both the immediate and long terms.

Mobile phone-based interventions for improving adherence to medication prescribed for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in adults

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a major cause of disability and mortality globally. Premature fatal and non-fatal CVD is considered to be largely preventable through the control of risk factors via lifestyle modifications and preventive medication. Lipid-lowering and antihypertensive drug therapies for primary prevention are cost-effective in reducing CVD morbidity and mortality among high-risk people and are recommended by international guidelines. However, adherence to medication prescribed for the prevention of CVD can be poor. Approximately 9% of CVD cases in the EU are attributed to poor adherence to vascular medications. Low-cost, scalable interventions to improve adherence to medications for the primary prevention of CVD have potential to reduce morbidity, mortality and healthcare costs associated with CVD.

OBJECTIVES

To establish the effectiveness of interventions delivered by mobile phone to improve adherence to medication prescribed for the primary prevention of CVD in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two other databases on 21 June 2017 and two clinical trial registries on 14 July 2017. We searched reference lists of relevant papers. We applied no language or date restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials investigating interventions delivered wholly or partly by mobile phones to improve adherence to cardiovascular medications prescribed for the primary prevention of CVD. We only included trials with a minimum of one-year follow-up in order that the outcome measures related to longer-term, sustained medication adherence behaviours and outcomes. Eligible comparators were usual care or control groups receiving no mobile phone-delivered component of the intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. We contacted study authors for disaggregated data when trials included a subset of eligible participants.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four trials with 2429 randomised participants. Participants were recruited from community-based primary care or outpatient clinics in high-income (Canada, Spain) and upper- to middle-income countries (South Africa, China). The interventions received varied widely; one trial evaluated an intervention focused on blood pressure medication adherence delivered solely through short messaging service (SMS), and one intervention involved blood pressure monitoring combined with feedback delivered via smartphone. Two trials involved interventions which targeted a combination of lifestyle modifications, alongside CVD medication adherence, one of which was delivered through text messages, written information pamphlets and self-completion cards for participants, and the other through a multi-component intervention comprising of text messages, a computerised CVD risk evaluation and face-to-face counselling. Due to heterogeneity in the nature and delivery of the interventions, we did not conduct a meta-analysis, and therefore reported results narratively.We judged the body of evidence for the effect of mobile phone-based interventions on objective outcomes (blood pressure and cholesterol) of low quality due to all included trials being at high risk of bias, and inconsistency in outcome effects. Of two trials targeting medication adherence alongside other lifestyle modifications, one reported a small beneficial intervention effect in reducing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (mean difference (MD) -9.2 mg/dL, 95% confidence interval (CI) -17.70 to -0.70; 304 participants), and the other found no benefit (MD 0.77 mg/dL, 95% CI -4.64 to 6.18; 589 participants). One trial (1372 participants) of a text messaging-based intervention targeting adherence showed a small reduction in systolic blood pressure (SBP) for the intervention arm which delivered information-only text messages (MD -2.2 mmHg, 95% CI -4.4 to -0.04), but uncertain evidence of benefit for the second intervention arm that provided additional interactivity (MD -1.6 mmHg, 95% CI -3.7 to 0.5). One study examined the effect of blood pressure monitoring combined with smartphone messaging, and reported moderate intervention benefits on SBP and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) (SBP: MD -7.10 mmHg, 95% CI -11.61 to -2.59; DBP: -3.90 mmHg, 95% CI -6.45 to -1.35; 105 participants). There was mixed evidence from trials targeting medication adherence alongside lifestyle advice using multi-component interventions. One trial found large benefits for SBP and DBP (SBP: MD -12.45 mmHg, 95% CI -15.02 to -9.88; DBP: MD -12.23 mmHg, 95% CI -14.03 to -10.43; 589 participants), whereas the other trial demonstrated no beneficial effects on SBP or DBP (SBP: MD 0.83 mmHg, 95% CI -2.67 to 4.33; DBP: MD 1.64 mmHg, 95% CI -0.55 to 3.83; 304 participants).Two trials reported on adverse events and provided low-quality evidence that the interventions did not cause harm. One study provided low-quality evidence that there was no intervention effect on reported satisfaction with treatment.Two trials were conducted in high-income countries, and two in upper- to middle-income countries. The interventions evaluated employed between three and 16 behaviour change techniques according to coding using Michie's taxonomic method. Two trials evaluated interventions that involved potential users in their development.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is low-quality evidence relating to the effects of mobile phone-delivered interventions to increase adherence to medication prescribed for the primary prevention of CVD; some trials reported small benefits while others found no effect. There is low-quality evidence that these interventions do not result in harm. On the basis of this review, there is currently uncertainty around the effectiveness of these interventions. We identified six ongoing trials being conducted in a range of contexts including low-income settings with potential to generate more precise estimates of the effect of primary prevention medication adherence interventions delivered by mobile phone.

Patient reminder and recall interventions to improve immunization rates

BACKGROUND

Immunization rates for children and adults are rising, but coverage levels have not reached optimal goals. As a result, vaccine-preventable diseases still occur. In an era of increasing complexity of immunization schedules, rising expectations about the performance of primary care, and large demands on primary care providers, it is important to understand and promote interventions that work in primary care settings to increase immunization coverage. One common theme across immunization programs in many nations involves the challenge of implementing a population-based approach and identifying all eligible recipients, for example the children who should receive the measles vaccine. However, this issue is gradually being addressed through the availability of immunization registries and electronic health records. A second common theme is identifying the best strategies to promote high vaccination rates. Three types of strategies have been studied: (1) patient-oriented interventions, such as patient reminder or recall, (2) provider interventions, and (3) system interventions, such as school laws. One of the most prominent intervention strategies, and perhaps best studied, involves patient reminder or recall systems. This is an update of a previously published review.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate and compare the effectiveness of various types of patient reminder and recall interventions to improve receipt of immunizations.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL to January 2017. We also searched grey literature and trial registers to January 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized trials, controlled before and after studies, and interrupted time series evaluating immunization-focused patient reminder or recall interventions in children, adolescents, and adults who receive immunizations in any setting. We included no-intervention control groups, standard practice activities that did not include immunization patient reminder or recall, media-based activities aimed at promoting immunizations, or simple practice-based awareness campaigns. We included receipt of any immunizations as eligible outcome measures, excluding special travel immunizations. We excluded patients who were hospitalized for the duration of the study period.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group. We present results for individual studies as relative rates using risk ratios, and risk differences for randomized trials, and as absolute changes in percentage points for controlled before-after studies. We present pooled results for randomized trials using the random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

The 75 included studies involved child, adolescent, and adult participants in outpatient, community-based, primary care, and other settings in 10 countries.Patient reminder or recall interventions, including telephone and autodialer calls, letters, postcards, text messages, combination of mail or telephone, or a combination of patient reminder or recall with outreach, probably improve the proportion of participants who receive immunization (risk ratio (RR) of 1.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.23 to 1.35; risk difference of 8%) based on moderate certainty evidence from 55 studies with 138,625 participants.Three types of single-method reminders improve receipt of immunizations based on high certainty evidence: the use of postcards (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.30; eight studies; 27,734 participants), text messages (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.44; six studies; 7772 participants), and autodialer (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.32; five studies; 11,947 participants). Two types of single-method reminders probably improve receipt of immunizations based on moderate certainty evidence: the use of telephone calls (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.54; seven studies; 9120 participants) and letters to patients (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.38; 27 studies; 81,100 participants).Based on high certainty evidence, reminders improve receipt of immunizations for childhood (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.29; risk difference of 8%; 23 studies; 31,099 participants) and adolescent vaccinations (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.42; risk difference of 7%; 10 studies; 30,868 participants). Reminders probably improve receipt of vaccinations for childhood influenza (RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.99; risk difference of 22%; five studies; 9265 participants) and adult influenza (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.43; risk difference of 9%; 15 studies; 59,328 participants) based on moderate certainty evidence. They may improve receipt of vaccinations for adult pneumococcus, tetanus, hepatitis B, and other non-influenza vaccinations based on low certainty evidence although the confidence interval includes no effect of these interventions (RR 2.08, 95% CI 0.91 to 4.78; four studies; 8065 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Patient reminder and recall systems, in primary care settings, are likely to be effective at improving the proportion of the target population who receive immunizations.