4.3 Article

Factors related to immunosuppressant medication adherence in renal transplant recipients

期刊

CLINICAL TRANSPLANTATION
卷 26, 期 5, 页码 706-713

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-0012.2011.01589.x

关键词

life satisfaction; medication adherence; medication beliefs; renal transplant

资金

  1. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Chisholm-Burns M, Pinsky B, Parker G, Johnson P, Arcona S, Buzinec P, Chakravarti P, Good M, Cooper M. Factors related to immunosuppressant medication adherence in renal transplant recipients. Abstract: Non-adherence to immunosuppressant medications (ISM) is a significant issue for transplant recipients. This study examines factors influencing ISM adherence in renal transplant recipients (RTRs). Patient-reported data were collected through a cross-sectional survey including use of ISMs, adherence behaviors, perceived adherence barriers, beliefs and attitudes toward ISMs, and patient life satisfaction. Logistic regression was conducted to examine how RTRs beliefs about use of ISMs, life satisfaction, and ISM adherence barriers were related to adherence. A total of 512 adult commercial insurance enrollees following renal transplantation were included in the analysis. One hundred and seventy-seven RTRs were non-adherent (34.5%); the most frequently cited reason was forgetfulness. RTRs aged 1829 yr were more likely to be non-adherent than recipients 4664 yr old (p = 0.001). Non-adherent RTRs had greater adherence barriers than adherent RTRs (p < 0.001). Adherent RTRs believed their ISMs were more necessary than non-adherent RTRs (p < 0.001), while non-adherent RTRs had greater concerns about taking ISMs (p = 0.009) and believed they had less control over their lives than adherent RTRs (p < 0.001). Non-adherent RTRs had lower life satisfaction (p < 0.001). Non-adherence is significantly associated with patients beliefs about ISMs, perceived barriers, and lower life satisfaction. Strategies to increase ISM adherence are discussed.

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

4.3
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