RESUMO
Background: Poor medication adherence hampers hypertension control and increases the risk of adverse health outcomes. Medication adherence can be measured with direct and indirect methods. The Hill-Bone Compliance to High Blood Pressure Therapy (HBCHBPT) Scale, one of the most popular adherence measures, indirectly assesses adherence to hypertension therapy in three behavioral domains: appointment keeping, diet and medication adherence. Aim: To synthesize evidence on the use of the HBCHBPT Scale, including psychometric properties, utility in diverse patient populations, and directions for future clinical use and research. Methods: We searched electronic databases, specifically CINAHL, PubMed, PsychInfo, Embase, and Web of Science. We included original studies that used the HBCHBPT Scale or its subscales to measure a health outcome, or methodological studies involving translations and validations of the scale. We extracted and synthesized data following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Results: Fifty studies were included in this review, 44 on hypertension, two on diabetes, and others on other chronic conditions. The scale was successfully translated into numerous languages and used in descriptive and intervention studies. The scale demonstrated sound psychometric properties (Cronbach's α coefficient 0.75) and sensitivity to capture intervention effects when used to evaluate the effectiveness of high blood pressure adherence interventions. The medication-taking subscale of HBCHBPT performs best and is widely used in diverse contexts to assess medication adherence for chronic conditions. Conclusion: The HBCHBPT Scale has high versatility globally and has been used in various settings by various healthcare worker cadres and researchers. The scale has several strengths, including high adherence phenotyping capabilities, contributing to the paradigm shift toward personalized health care.
RESUMO
Community health centers (CHCs) focus on serving socioeconomically disadvantaged populations with heightened chronic disease burden, making CHCs an ideal setting for implementing diabetes care programs that target vulnerable populations. We aimed to synthesize evidence concerning the effects of CHC interventions in people with diabetes. To do this, four electronic databases were searched, including PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Scopus, and hand searches of reference collections were undertaken to identify intervention trials published in English. We screened 892 unique titles and abstracts. Two reviewers then independently evaluated 221 full-text articles. We discovered 29 articles met our eligibility criteria for inclusion. We found 27 unique studies with two companion articles. Seventeen studies were randomized controlled trials and the majority had a higher proportion of female and racial/ethnic minorities in the study sample. CHC interventions often involved either one-on-one or group education sessions supplemented by a phone follow-up that were delivered by health providers, nutritionists, or community health workers. CHC interventions using education sessions combined with follow up via phone generally resulted in significant improvements in hemoglobin A1C, while sole telephone-based education studies showed no significant improvements. CHC interventions had no significant effects on physical activity in all six studies that examined the outcome. Overall, we found that CHC interventions were in general effective in improving glucose control when using face-to-face interactions in low-income, underserved, and racial and ethnic minority patients with diabetes. Evidence was limited, however, in regards to other outcomes which suggests the need for continued evaluations of CHC intervention models.
