AIMSMedication non-adherence is a significant health problem. There are numerous methods for measuring adherence, but no single method performs well on all criteria. The purpose of this systematic review is to (i) identify self-report medication adherence scales that have been correlated with comparison measures of medication-taking behaviour, (ii) assess how these scales measure adherence and (iii) explore how these adherence scales have been validated. METHODSCinahl and PubMed databases were used to search articles written in English on the development or validation of medication adherence scales dating to August 2012. The search terms used were medication adherence, medication non-adherence, medication compliance and names of each scale. Data such as barriers identified and validation comparison measures were extracted and compared. RESULTSSixty articles were included in the review, which consisted of 43 adherence scales. Adherence scales include items that either elicit information regarding the patient's medication-taking behaviour and/or attempts to identify barriers to good medication-taking behaviour or beliefs associated with adherence. The validation strategies employed depended on whether the focus of the scale was to measure medication-taking behaviour or identify barriers or beliefs. CONCLUSIONSSupporting patients to be adherent requires information on their medication-taking behaviour, barriers to adherence and beliefs about medicines. Adherence scales have the potential to explore these aspects of adherence, but currently there has been a greater focus on measuring medication-taking behaviour. Selecting the 'right' adherence scale(s) requires consideration of what needs to be measured and how (and in whom) the scale has been validated.

2 Highlights We investigated the relationship between medication beliefs and adherence  Necessity beliefs were significantly positively correlated with adherence  Concern beliefs were significantly negatively correlated with adherence  Necessity effect size was different in asthma and cardiovascular group 3 Abstract ObjectiveThis meta-analysis investigated whether beliefs in the necessity and concerns of medicine and the necessity-concerns differential are correlated with medication adherence on a population level and in different conditions. MethodsAn electronic search of Web of Science, EMBASE, PubMed and CINAHL was conducted for manuscripts utilising the Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire and comparing it to any measure of medication adherence. Studies were pooled using the random-effects model to produce a mean overall effect size correlation. Studies were stratified for condition, adherence measure, power and study design. ResultsNinety-four papers were included in the meta-analysis. The overall effect size(r) for necessity, concerns, and necessity-concerns differential was 0.17, -0.18 and 0.24 respectively and these were all significant (p<0.0001). Effect size for necessity was stronger in asthma and weaker in the cardiovascular group compared to the overall effect size. ConclusionNecessity and concerns beliefs and the necessity-concerns differential were correlated with medication adherence on a population level and across the majority of included conditions. The effect sizes were mostly small with a magnitude comparable to other predictors of adherence. Practice implicationsThis meta-analysis suggests that necessity and concern beliefs about medicines are one important factor to consider when understanding reasons for non-adherence.

ObjectiveTo determine if a targeted and tailored intervention based on a discussion informed by validated adherence scales will improve medication adherence.DesignProspective randomised trial.Setting2 community pharmacies in Brisbane, Australia.MethodsPatients recently initiated on a cardiovascular or oral hypoglycaemic medication within the past 4–12 weeks were recruited from two community pharmacies. Participants identified as non-adherent using the Medication Adherence Questionnaire (MAQ) were randomised into the intervention or control group. The intervention group received a tailored intervention based on a discussion informed by responses to the MAQ, Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire-Specific and Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire. Adherence was measured using the MAQ at 3 and 6 months following the intervention.ResultsA total of 408 patients were assessed for eligibility, from which 152 participants were enrolled into the study. 120 participants were identified as non-adherent using the MAQ and randomised to the ‘intervention’ or ‘control’ group. The mean MAQ score at baseline in the intervention and control were similar (1.58: 95% CI (1.38 to 1.78) and 1.60: 95% CI (1.43 to 1.77), respectively). There was a statistically significant improvement in adherence in the intervention group compared to control at 3 months (mean MAQ score 0.42: 95% CI (0.27 to 0.57) vs 1.58: 95% CI (1.42 to 1.75); p<0.001). The significant improvement in MAQ score in the intervention group compared to control was sustained at 6 months (0.48: 95% CI (0.31 to 0.65) vs 1.48: 95% CI (1.27 to 1.69); p<0.001).ConclusionsAn intervention that targeted non-adherent participants and tailored to participant-specific reasons for non-adherence was successful at improving medication adherence.Trial registration numberACTRN12613000162718; Results.

Proponents of Evidence-based medicine (EBM) do not provide a clear role for basic science in therapeutic decision making. Of what they do say about basic science, most of it is negative. Basic science resides on the lower tiers of EBM's hierarchy of evidence. Therapeutic decisions, according to proponents of EBM, should be informed by evidence from randomised studies (and systematic reviews of randomised studies) rather than basic science. A framework of models explicates the links between the mechanisms of basic science, experimental inquiry, and observed data. Relying on the framework of models I show that basic science often plays a role not only in specifying experiments, but also analysing and interpreting the data that is provided. Further, and contradicting what is implied in EBM's hierarchy of evidence, appeals to basic science are often required to apply clinical research to therapeutic questions.

BackgroundPoor translation of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) into clinical practice is a barrier to the provision of consistent and high-quality evidence-based care. The objective was to systematically review the roles and effectiveness of knowledge brokers (KBs) for translating CPGs in health-related settings.MethodsMEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL Plus were searched from 2014 to June 2022. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled and uncontrolled preintervention and postintervention studies involving KBs, either alone or as part of a multicomponent intervention, that reported quantitative postintervention changes in guideline implementation in a healthcare setting were included. A KB was defined as an intermediary who facilitated knowledge translation by acting in at least two of the following core roles: knowledge manager, linkage agent or capacity builder. Specific activities undertaken by KBs were deductively coded to the three core roles, then common activities were inductively grouped. Screening, data extraction, quality assessment and coding were performed independently by two authors.Results16 studies comprising 6 RCTs, 8 uncontrolled precomparisons–postcomparisons, 1 controlled precomparison–postcomparison and 1 interrupted time series were included. 14 studies (88%) were conducted in hospital settings. Knowledge manager roles included creating and distributing guideline material. Linkage agent roles involved engaging with internal and external stakeholders. Capacity builder roles involved audit and feedback and educating staff. KBs improved guideline adherence in 10 studies (63%), had mixed impact in 2 studies (13%) and no impact in 4 studies (25%). Half of the RCTs showed KBs had no impact on guideline adherence. KBs acted as knowledge managers in 15 (94%) studies, linkage agents in 11 (69%) studies and capacity builders in all studies.ConclusionKnowledge manager and capacity builder roles were more frequently studied than linkage agent roles. KBs had mixed impact on translating CPGs into practice. Further RCTs, including those in non-hospital settings, are required.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42022340365.