Table 4.

Adherence measures.

Study author	Method used to measure adherence	Method used to classify adherence
Ayhan et al 2021	Patient reported - none structured	Not discussed
Grubhofer et al 2019	Temperature (Orthotimer) sensor	Classification system: High compliance - 80% or more, low compliance less than 80%
Kaskutas and Powell 2013	Patient reported - telephone interview	Not discussed
Kolmus et al 2012	Patient reported - questionnaire	Classification system: Adherent - wore splint for 4 or more days in a week for 6 h or more, and 4 or more nights a week for 4 or more hours
Loewenstein et al 2022	Patient/therapist reported - none structured	Not discussed
Mercurio et al 2023	Medical adherence measurement questionnaire (MAM score)	MAM score
Mottay 2020	Therapist and patient reported - none structured	Not discussed
O'Brien and bailey 2011	Modified groth classification	Classification system: Based on the 3-point scale described by groth. Compliant, secondarily compliant, noncompliant
Roh et al 2016	Modified groth classification	Classification system: Based on the 3-point scale described by groth. Compliant, secondarily compliant, noncompliant
Savaş and Aydoğan, 2022	Patient reported - questionnaire	Classification system: Fully adherent - participants wore splint 100% as recommended. Partial non-adherence - patients who did not wear orthosis for 100% of the recommended time but never used the injured hand. Non-adherent - patients who did not wear orthosis for 100% of the recommended time and used the injured hand
Silverio and Cheung 2014	Medical adherence measurement questionnaire (MAM score)	MAM score
Mortazavi et al	Patient reported diary	Participant classified as adherent if wore the splint more than 5 nights in a week
Weir et al	Temperature (HOBO MX2201) sensor	Classification system: High compliance - 80% or more, low compliance - less than 80%
Azad et al	Patient reported	Any removal of splint was considered non-adherence