Why the study?
The study was conducted to evaluate the prevalence of adherence to antihypertensive treatment in the Brazilian population using dedicated instruments.
What is the prevalence of adherence to antihypertensive treatment in the Brazilian population?
What is the prevalence of adherence to antihypertensive treatment in the Brazilian population?
The prevalence of adherence to antihypertensive treatment in Brazil is unsatisfactory at 44.4%, highlighting a major ongoing challenge in hypertension management.
Low adherence prevalence signals urgent need for targeted strategies in Brazilian hypertension care; leaves open optimal intervention identification.
This article aims to evaluate the adherence to antihypertensive treatment prevalence in the Brazilian population based on peer-reviewed studies which used instruments exclusively designed and/or adapted for this purpose. A systematic review with meta-analysis based on the recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The search was carried out in the BDENF, SciELO, Cuiden, PsycINFOe, CINAHL, Embase, LILACS, and MEDLINE databases, as well as the AgeLine, Google Scholar and ScienceDirect academic search engines. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021292689). Random effects models were used for a meta-analysis of the prevalence obtained from individual studies. A total of 104 studies were included in the meta-analysis on antihypertensive treatment in the Brazilian population, totaling 38,299 patients. The most used instrument was the four-item Morisky-Green Test (49.5%). The adherence prevalence estimated by the meta-analysis was 44.4% (95%CI: 39.12%-49.94%, I2 = 91.17, p < 0.001), showing high heterogeneity. The adherence to antihypertensive treatment prevalence found in national studies was unsatisfactory, demonstrating that this problem continues to be a major challenge.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Coelho et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: