Non-adherence to immunosuppressive medications in kidney transplant recipients- a systematic scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rejection and graft failure remain common in kidney transplant recipients. Non-adherence to immunosuppressive medications is considered a major contributary factor to reduced long-term graft survival, particularly in younger people. Improvements in clinical practice based on adherence studies has been minimal. METHODS: Joanna Briggs' Institute Methodology was used. MedlineALL, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection and Scopus databases were searched from January 2000 through to December 2023. Abstract and full text reviews were undertaken independently by two reviewers. Data was collated using a pre-designed extraction tool. RESULTS: 359 articles met the inclusion criteria. Non-adherence was commonly defined using self-reported questionnaires or pharmacy re-fill rates. Prevalence of non-adherence varied widely. There was little correlation between method of measurement and reported rates of non-adherence. Despite younger age being identified as a risk factor for non-adherence, pooled reported prevalence did not differ significantly in studies reporting prevalence in children, adolescents, or young adults vs. older adults (36.0 % vs. 34.0 %). Interventional studies to detect or improve adherence are highly heterogenous, often report small effects and are limited by the lack of gold-standard methods to measure adherence. DISCUSSION: This scoping review outlines the complexities of non-adherence to immunosuppressive medications among kidney transplant recipients, highlighting significant variability in adherence definitions, measurements, and intervention efficacy. Reported non-adherence rates vary widely (2-89 %), underscoring the need for standardisation of the definition of non-adherence in research. Findings suggest that non-adherence to immunosuppressive medication is driven by a mix of demographic, psychosocial, and transplant-specific factors. Future research should prioritise standardised definitions of adherence, validated tools to measure adherence, and focus on clinically significant outcomes in non-adherent populations to develop meaningful, impactful interventions for long-term patient benefit.
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 | 0.017 | 0.079 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".