Strategies aiming to improve statin therapy adherence in older adults: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Randomized clinical trials have shown that, under optimal conditions, statins reduce the risk of cardiovascular events in older adults. Given the prevalence and consequences of suboptimal adherence to statin among older adults, it is essential to document strategies designed to increase statin adherence in this population. The objective of this systematic review is to describe and summarize the effectiveness of interventions to improve statin adherence in older adults (≥ 65 years old). Methods This review followed PRISMA guidelines. Studies were identified from PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, CINAHL and Web of Science. Study selection was conducted independently by four reviewers working in pairs. Included studies reported data on interventions designed to increase adherence to statin therapy in older adults and were original trials or observational studies. Interventions were pragmatically regrouped into 8 different categories going from patient to administrative level. Two reviewers extracted study data and assessed study quality independently. Given the heterogeneity between the included studies, a narrative critique and summary was conducted. Results Twelve out of the 2889 identified articles were included in the review. Our review showed that simplifying patients’ drug regimen, administrative improvements and large-scale pharmacy-led automated telephone interventions show positive effects on patient adherence to statin therapy, with odds ratios between > 1.0 and 3.0, while education-based strategies and intensified patient care showed mixed results. Conclusions Current evidence suggests that some interventions can increase statin adherence in older adults, which could help in the reduction of the risk of a cardiovascular event in this population.
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 | 0.012 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".