37
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Psychotropic medication non-adherence and its associated factors among patients with major psychiatric disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Major psychiatric disorders are growing public health concern that attributed 14% of the global burden of diseases. The management of major psychiatric disorders is challenging mainly due to medication non-adherence. However, there is a paucity of summarized evidence on the prevalence of psychotropic medication non-adherence and associated factors. Therefore, we aimed to summarize existing primary studies’ finding to determine the pooled prevalence and factors associated with psychotropic medication non-adherence.

          Methods

          A total of 4504 studies written in English until December 31, 2017, were searched from the main databases ( n = 3125) (PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Web of Science) and other relevant sources (mainly from Google Scholar, n = 1379). Study selection, screening, and data extraction were carried out independently by two authors. Observational studies that had been conducted among adult patients (18 years and older) with major psychiatric disorders were eligible for the selection process. Critical appraisal of the included studies was carried out using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. Systematic synthesis of the studies was carried out to summarize factors associated with psychotropic medication non-adherence. Meta-analysis was carried using Stata 14. Random effects model was used to compute the pooled prevalence, and sub-group analysis at 95% confidence interval.

          Results

          Forty-six studies were included in the systematic review. Of these, 35 studies (schizophrenia ( n = 9), depressive ( n = 16), and bipolar ( n = 10) disorders) were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, 49% of major psychiatric disorder patients were non-adherent to their psychotropic medication. Of these, psychotropic medication non-adherence for schizophrenia, major depressive disorders, and bipolar disorders were 56%, 50%, and 44%, respectively. Individual patient’s behaviors, lack of social support, clinical or treatment and illness-related, and health system factors influenced psychotropic medication non-adherence.

          Conclusion

          Psychotropic medication non-adherence was high. It was influenced by various factors operating at different levels. Therefore, comprehensive intervention strategies should be designed to address factors associated with psychotropic medication non-adherence.

          Systematic review registration

          PROSPERO CRD42017067436

          Related collections

          Most cited references75

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

          Flaws in the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of randomised trials can cause the effect of an intervention to be underestimated or overestimated. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias aims to make the process clearer and more accurate
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement

              Systematic reviews should build on a protocol that describes the rationale, hypothesis, and planned methods of the review; few reviews report whether a protocol exists. Detailed, well-described protocols can facilitate the understanding and appraisal of the review methods, as well as the detection of modifications to methods and selective reporting in completed reviews. We describe the development of a reporting guideline, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols 2015 (PRISMA-P 2015). PRISMA-P consists of a 17-item checklist intended to facilitate the preparation and reporting of a robust protocol for the systematic review. Funders and those commissioning reviews might consider mandating the use of the checklist to facilitate the submission of relevant protocol information in funding applications. Similarly, peer reviewers and editors can use the guidance to gauge the completeness and transparency of a systematic review protocol submitted for publication in a journal or other medium.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                agucell@yahoo.com
                ktorpey@hotmail.com
                abumanu@yahoo.com
                negaassefa@yahoo.com
                gezites@gmail.com
                aankomah@popcouncil.org
                Journal
                Syst Rev
                Syst Rev
                Systematic Reviews
                BioMed Central (London )
                2046-4053
                16 January 2020
                16 January 2020
                2020
                : 9
                : 17
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1937 1485, GRID grid.8652.9, Department of Population, Family and Reproductive Health, School of Public Health, College of Health Sciences, , University of Ghana, ; Accra, Ghana
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0001 0108 7468, GRID grid.192267.9, College of Health and Medical Sciences, , Haramaya University, ; Po Box 235, Harar, Ethiopia
                [3 ]Population Council/Ghana, Yiyiwa Drive, Accra, Ghana
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6625-8184
                Article
                1274
                10.1186/s13643-020-1274-3
                6966860
                31948489
                b4a4377d-99d0-4eae-853d-dfc09c812040
                © The Author(s). 2020

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 9 April 2018
                : 6 January 2020
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100004423, World Health Organization;
                Award ID: B40300
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2020

                Public health
                medication non-adherence,psychiatric disorders,systematic review,meta-analysis
                Public health
                medication non-adherence, psychiatric disorders, systematic review, meta-analysis

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                375
                14
                267
                8
                Smart Citations
                375
                14
                267
                8
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content300

                Cited by152

                Most referenced authors1,905