Key result
Antihypertensive medication non-adherence affects ~84% of rural outpatients, peaking at ~95% in older adults.
Why the study?
Systemic hypertension is a priority public health issue due to high prevalence and poor control associated with low treatment adherence, motivating an assessment of treatment adherence among patients at a rural hospital in Sinaloa.
Cross-Sectional (n=197)
No
This cross-sectional study reveals a high prevalence (83.8%) of medication non-adherence among hypertensive outpatients in a rural Mexican hospital, particularly among older adults (61–80 years) and those with lower educational attainment.
Urgent need for adherence interventions in rural settings; leaves open prospective trials linking adherence to outcomes.
Systemic hypertension is a priority public health issue due to its high prevalence and poor control, primarily associated with low treatment adherence.The objective was to describe adherence to hypertension treatment among patients at a rural hospital in Sinaloa.Methodology: A quantitative, descriptive, observational, and cross-sectional study with a sample of 197 patients selected using non-probabilistic quota/convenience sampling.A sociodemographic questionnaire and the Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS-8) were administered.Results: 62.9% of the participants were women, and the most common age group was 61 to 80 years (42.6%).83.8% of the patients were non--adherent to treatment.Nonadherence was high in both sexes (men 86.3%, women 82.3%).100% had diabetes mellitus as a comorbidity.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lizárraga et al. (2026) conducted a cross-sectional in Systemic hypertension (n=197). Antihypertensive medication adherence (assessed via MMAS-8) was evaluated on Non-adherence to antihypertensive treatment measured by the 8-item Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS-8). Antihypertensive treatment non-adherence was present in 83.8% of rural hospital outpatients, reaching 95.2% among adults aged 61 to 80 years.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: