4.2 Article

Adherence to pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment of frail hypertensive patients

期刊

JOURNAL OF GERIATRIC CARDIOLOGY
卷 15, 期 2, 页码 153-161

出版社

SCIENCE PRESS
DOI: 10.11909/j.issn.1671-5411.2018.02.002

关键词

Adherence; Elderly; Frailty syndrome; Non-pharmacological treatment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To investigate the relationship between frailty syndrome (FS) and adherence to pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment for hypertension. Methods The study included 100 patients diagnosed with hypertension and treated with one or more hypotensive drugs. Results Frail patients obtained low scores (4.1 +/- 2.0) for adherence to pharmaceutical treatment of hypertension, while non-frail patients obtained moderate scores (6.1 +/- 2.1). Non-frail patients had higher scores in two out of four domains of the Health Behavior Inventory (HBI): positive mental attitudes (3.6 +/- 0.4 vs. 3.2 +/- 0.5; P = 0.006) and health practices (3.6 +/- 0.5 vs. 3.2 +/- 0.5; P < 0.03); as well as higher global scores (HBI raw score): 83.3 +/- 10.6 vs. 77.3 +/- 9.5; P < 0.03. Multiple regression analysis showed that frailty syndrome (FS) was a statistically significant independent determinant of worse adherence to pharmacological treatment (beta = -0.27; P < 0.001) and health behaviors (beta = -0.10; P = 0.036). Education was a statistically significant independent determinant of better adherence to pharmacological treatment (beta = 0.82; P = 0.012), while net income positively affected health behaviors as measured by the HBI (beta = 0.39; P = 0.046). Conclusions FS is a significant independent factor contributing to worse adherence to pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment of hypertension. Better education significantly improves patients' adherence to the prescribed pharmacological treatment, while a good financial standing evidenced by high net income is a determinant of better adherence to health-related behaviors recommended in hypertension treatment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据