Medication adherence and persistence in type 2 diabetes mellitus: perspectives of patients, physicians and pharmacists on the Spanish health care system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Elena Labrador Barba,1 Marta Rodríguez de Miguel,1 Antonio Hernández-Mijares,2,3 Francisco Javier Alonso-Moreno,4 Maria Luisa Orera Peña,1 Susana Aceituno,5 María José Faus Dader6 1Department of Medicine, Mylan, Madrid, 2Department of Endocrinology and Nutrition, Doctor Peset University Hospital, Valencia, 3Department of Medicine, University of Valencia, Valencia, 4Department for Primary Health Care, Centro de Salud Sillería, Toledo, 5Outcomes’10, Castellon, 6Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Granada, Granada, Spain Objective: A good relationship between diabetes patients and their health care team is crucial to ensure patients’ medication adherence and self-management. To this end, we aimed to identify and compare the views of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients, physicians and pharmacists concerning the factors and strategies that may be associated with, or could improve, medication adherence and persistence.Methods: An observational, cross-sectional study was conducted using an electronic self-administered questionnaire comprising 11 questions (5-point Likert scale) concerning factors and strategies related to medication adherence. The survey was designed for T2DM patients and Spanish National Health System professionals.Results: A total of 963 T2DM patients, 998 physicians and 419 pharmacists participated in the study. Overall, a lower proportion of pharmacists considered the proposed factors associated with medication adherence important as compared to patients and physicians. It should be noted that a higher percentage of physicians in comparison to pharmacists perceived that “complexity of medication” (97% vs 76.6%, respectively) and “adverse events” (97.5% vs 72.2%, respectively) were important medication-related factors affecting adherence. In addition, both patients (80.8%) and physicians (80.8%) agreed on the importance of “cost and co-payment” for adherence, whereas only 48.6% of pharmacists considered this factor important. It is also noteworthy that nearly half of patients (43%) agreed that “to adjust medication to activities of daily living” was the best strategy to reduce therapeutic complexity, whereas physicians believed that “reducing the frequency of administration” (47.9%) followed by “reducing the number of tablets” (28.5%) was the most effective strategy to improve patients’ adherence.Conclusion: Our results highlight the need for pharmacists to build a stronger relationship with physicians in order to improve patients monitoring and adherence rates. Additionally, these findings may help to incorporate greater patient-centeredness when developing management strategies, focusing on adjusting medication regimens to patients’ daily lives. Keywords: type 2 diabetes mellitus, adherence, persistence, factors, strategies
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".