Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2024 Nov 12;19(11):e0302546. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0302546

Medication adherence and quality of life among geriatric patients: Insights from a hospital-based cross-sectional study in India

Umaima Farheen Khaiser 1, Rokeya Sultana 1,*, Ranajit Das 2, Saeed G Alzahrani 3, Shahabe Saquib 4, Shaheen Shamsuddin 5, Mohammad Fareed 6
Editor: Md Feroz Kabir7
PMCID: PMC11556742  PMID: 39531455

Abstract

Background

Understanding the factors that influence medication adherence and the multidimensional aspects of quality of life in the elderly is of paramount importance in enhancing their overall well-being. Since geriatric patients usually suffer from multiple morbidities due to their declining age, the adherence towards their medications plays a very crucial role in their quality of life.

Methodology

This cross-sectional study explores the intricate relationship between medication adherence and quality of life among 310 elderly patients at a single medical college and hospital. Participants completed the Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS-8) to assess medication adherence and the World Health Organization Quality of Life-BREF (WHOQOL-BREF) questionnaire, which comprises four domains (physical health, psychological health, social relationships, and environment) to evaluate quality of life. Statistical analyses, including correlations, paired t-tests, ANOVA, and Backward Multiple Linear Regression, were employed to examine the relationships and differences among variables.

Results

The findings indicate varying levels of medication adherence among participants, with a significant proportion exhibiting medium adherence (47.1%) and highlighting the need for interventions to address challenges in medication adherence among the elderly population. Notably, gender emerged as a significant factor influencing quality of life, with males reporting higher satisfaction across all domains compared to females. Medication adherence exhibited a significant correlation with the social relationships domain (DOM3) of the WHOQOL-BREF, underlining the importance of adherence in fostering positive social interactions.

Conclusion

Our study revealed a significant association between medication adherence (MMAS- 8) and the quality of life (WHOQOL-BREF) among elderly patients. We also observed noteworthy gender differences in quality-of-life perceptions. It emphasizes the need for tailored interventions that consider medication adherence issues to enhance the overall quality of life among this vulnerable population.

Introduction

Population ageing is considered to be one of the most significant societal transformations [1]. The geriatric population has had a twofold increase since the year 1980 [2]. According to findings from the 2001 census, it was noted that there were around 77 million individuals categorized as elderly in the population. Subsequently, in 2011, this figure experienced an increase, reaching a total of 96 million. Projections indicate that by the year 2050, the elderly population is anticipated to escalate significantly, reaching an estimated 301 million individuals [2,3]. The primary health concerns faced by the geriatric population encompass non-communicable diseases (NCDs), like cardiovascular disease (CVD), diabetes mellitus (DM), chronic lung disease, hypertension, and cancer [3]. The continuing increase in the older demographic, along with a significant rise in the availability of prescription medications and adherence to treatment regimens, has presented a complex and demanding concern [2,4]. The elderly population has a heightened susceptibility to therapeutic non-adherence due to their increased morbidity and mortality rates, as well as the presence of cognitive and social impairments that impede proper medicine utilization [5].

The concept of quality of life is a complex and comprehensive construct that encompasses a range of dimensions related to individuals’ well-being. These dimensions include physical health, mental health, functional abilities, social relationships, and general happiness with life [6,7]. The preservation of an ideal quality of life holds significant relevance for geriatric adults, as it directly influences their level of independence, capacity to engage in everyday activities, and emotional well-being [8]. The presence of chronic diseases and their corresponding symptoms can have a substantial negative impact on the overall quality of life among elderly individuals, necessitating the utmost importance of ensuring disease management using medication adherence [9].

Medication adherence pertains to the degree to which individuals adhere to the advice provided by their healthcare providers with regards to the time, dosage, and frequency of prescribed medication [10]. The elderly demographic faces unique difficulties in adhering to prescription regimens, leading to inconsistent medication adherence [11]. Difficulties in comprehending and sticking to intricate medication instructions can arise from various factors, including cognitive decline, memory problems, sensory limitations, and the coexistence of comorbidities [12]. Consequently, the rates of adherence among older persons exhibit significant variation, which may result in inadequate management of diseases and a decline in overall quality of life [13]. Medication adherence and its impact on the quality of life among geriatric populations have garnered significant attention in recent years [14,15]. The ageing demographic is experiencing a notable increase globally, leading to a greater prevalence of chronic diseases and a subsequent rise in medication utilization among older adults [16]. The prevalence of medication adherence among the elderly varies between 40% and 75% across different settings [2]. Numerous reasons have been linked to non-adherence, including certain attributes of the medications prescribed, such as unpleasant reactions, pharmaceutical costs, inadequate instructions, and polypharmacy [17]. However, the effectiveness of these medications in enhancing the quality of life among geriatric individuals is closely tied to their adherence to prescribed regimens [18]. Medication non-adherence can have profound consequences, including increased healthcare costs, worsened disease outcomes, and diminished quality of life [19].

The relationship between medication adherence and quality of life in elderly adults is complex and mutually influential [20]. Adherence to recommended drug regimens has been shown to result in greater disease management, improved symptom control, and overall better health outcomes [21]. In the given context, a positive cycle is generated whereby enhanced medication adherence leads to enhanced health outcomes, subsequently contributing to an elevated standard of living [22]. In contrast, inadequate adherence to drug regimens can result in the advancement of diseases, exacerbation of symptoms, heightened rates of hospitalization, and a decline in overall quality of life [23]. There are various determinants that exert an influence on medication adherence and quality of life in the geriatric population. These determinants include socioeconomic status, healthcare accessibility, social support systems, cognitive functioning, and patient-provider communication [24,25]. Economic limitations can restrict the availability of medications, thereby impeding adherence [26]. Strong social support can encourage positive medication-taking behaviors, while cognitive decline can impede an individual’s capacity to effectively manage medication schedules [27]. Therefore, establishing effective communication between healthcare providers and older patients is of paramount importance in addressing these determinants and facilitating both medication adherence and overall quality of life [26].

The ageing population is a global phenomenon and understanding how medication adherence affects the quality of life in this demographic is vital for healthcare systems worldwide [28,29]. Exploring the nexus between medication adherence and quality of life can offer insights into optimizing treatment strategies, improving health outcomes, and effectively utilizing healthcare resources. This study aims to evaluate the association between medication adherence and the quality of life among elderly patients with chronic diseases in Yenepoya Medical College and Hospital, Deralakatte, Mangalore, India.

Methodology

Setting and study design

A hospital based descriptive, cross-sectional study was conducted for elderly patients aged 60 years and above. The present study was carried out at Yenepoya Medical College and Hospital, located in Derelakatte, Mangalore, Karnataka, India. The hospital is a facility with a capacity of 1250 beds, serving an average of 650 out-patients and 300 in patients per day with a population of roughly 44,882 people.

Sample size calculation

The sample size required for the present study was estimated via a sample-size calculator accessible on the website, www.raosoft.com The sample-size calculator facilitates the creation of a representative sample by mitigating selection bias through a 5% margin of error, operating within a 95% confidence interval, and assuming a 50% response distribution. These parameters help minimize the skewness of the sample size and enable the determination of the maximum feasible sample size. A sample size of around 310 elderly patients, aged 60 years and above were selected.

Screening of the patients (both in-patient & out-patient)

A simple random sampling technique was applied. Informed consent forms were given to the patients, and patients who were willing to participate had signed the consent form and were recruited depending upon the inclusion and exclusion criteria and then their demographic details. Medical history and medication history data were collected as per the data collection form. Informed consent was given to each patient and taken their signatures and documented.

Inclusion criteria: Patients aged 60 years and above who are receiving multi-drug therapy, defined as taking five or more medications for out-patients and nine or more medications for in-patients.

Exclusion criteria:

  • Patients who are critically ill.

  • Patients with cognitive impairment or mental retardation.

  • Patients who are unwilling to participate in the study.

Research ethics and permissions

The study received ethics approvals from the Yenepoya Medical College & Hospital Research Ethics Committee-1 (YEC-1), date of approval 01-06-2022.

Data collection instrument

An epidemiological questionnaire was developed with the aim of investigating sociodemographic factors, including age and gender, as well as personal medical history. The WHOQOL-BREF questionnaire is extensively employed as a generic instrument for assessing quality of life [30,31]. The questionnaire includes four domains, the components of each domain are mentioned in Table 1. WHOQOL-BREF scale contains a total of 26 items: items 3–26 represent four domains (“Physical Health” (DOM 1)—7 items (Pain and discomfort; Dependence on medicinal substances and medical aids; Energy and fatigue; Mobility; Sleep; Activities of daily living; Work capacity),“Psychological Health” (DOM 2)—6 items (Positive feelings; Spirituality/personal beliefs; Thinking, learning, memory and concentration; Bodily image and appearance; Self- esteem; Negative feelings), “Social Relationships” (DOM 3)—3 items (Personal relationships; Sexual activity; Social support), “Environment” (DOM 4)—8 items (Freedom, physical safety, and Security; Physical environment (pollution/noise/traffic/climate); Financial resources; Opportunities for acquiring new information and skills; Participation in and opportunities for recreation/leisure activities; Home environment; Health and social care: accessibility and quality; Transport) [32]. The patients were questioned regarding how they had evaluated their health, quality of life, and other aspects of their lives over the previous two weeks. The responses to each questions are provided on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 signifying the least agreement and 5 signifying the greatest agreement with the stated proposition. The domain score is calculated using the average score of the items in each domain. The total of the results of items is represented by results on domains. A higher total of points indicates a higher standard of living in a certain domain.

Table 1. Different domains for quality of life and their components according to WHO-QOL-BREF protocol.

Domain Components within domains
1. Physical health (DOM 1) a. Activities of daily living
b. Dependence on medicinal substances and medical facilities
c. Energy and fatigue
d. Mobility
e. Pain and discomfort
f. Sleep and rest
g. Work Capacity
2. Psychological (DOM 2) a. Bodily image and appearance
b. Negative feelings
c. Positive feelings
d. Self-esteem
e. Spirituality / Religion / Personal beliefs
f. Thinking, learning, memory, and concentration
3. Social relationships (DOM 3) a. Personal relationships
b. Social support
c. Sexual activity
4. Environment (DOM 4) a. Financial resources
b. Freedom, physical safety, and security
c. Health and social care: accessibility and quality
d. Home environment
e. Opportunities for acquiring new information and skills.
f. Participation in and opportunities for recreation / leisure activities
g. Physical environment (pollution / noise / traffic / climate)
h. Transport

The evaluation of adherence to the prescribed medication was conducted by administering an eight-item structured questionnaire to the patients, following the adaptation of the MMAS-8 (Morisky 8-item Medication Adherence Scale) for the specific context. The MMAS-8 is a widely used self-reported questionnaire designed to assess medication adherence. It consists of eight items, each with a binary response format (yes/no) or Likert scale. The scoring of MMAS-8 involves summing the responses to these items, with higher scores indicating greater adherence. Specifically, a score of 8 indicates high adherence, scores between 6 and 7 indicate medium adherence and scores below 6 indicate low adherence.

Data collection process

The informed consent for participation in the study was obtained from the study participants. They have been informed about the process and importance of the study and have been assured that their details shall not be disclosed during and after the time of the study. The participants who had not provided consent were excluded from the study. The Ethics Committee-1 (YEC-1) had approved the consent procedure of the study. Following the acquisition of informed consent, the study participants were questioned at several locations including the out-patient department, and in-patient wards (general medicine ward, geriatric ward, and surgery wards) from 10th September 2022 to 5th August 2023. The data was gathered about the socio-demographic characteristics of the patients encompassing age, gender, IP/OP, medical and medication history by the utilization of a standardized questionnaire. The principal investigator along with the research assistant received training on the significance and utilization of the WHOQOL-BREF and the MMAS-8 instrument. They were also instructed for the method of data collection and were under the supervision of the public health professionals and epidemiologists. Answering the questionnaire took approximately 20–25 minutes. Incomplete questionnaires were excluded from the analysis.

Data analysis

The data was encoded and entered into an Excel spreadsheet and later transferred to SPSS. The data analysis was conducted using the SPSS version 26. The descriptive statistics for categorical variables were computed as frequency and percentages, for numerical variables mean and standard deviation. Correlation was done to determine the level of agreement between Medication adherence (MMAS-8) and four domains of WHOQOL-BREF. A paired t-test was done to compare the differences between the four domains of WHOQOL-BREF. To investigate the association between participants’ sociodemographic characteristics and their WHOQOL-BREF, an independent t-test (2 groups) and ANOVA test (>2 groups) were used. Finally, multiple linear regression (Backward method) was done to control the confounding effects. A probability value (p-value) of less than 0.05 was deemed to indicate statistical significance.

Results

A total of 310 elderly patients were interviewed by the research team in the in-patient and out- patient department of Yenepoya Medical College and Hospital. Table 2 illustrates the socio-demographic characteristics of study participants. The study population had a mean age of 70.25±5.56 years. There were 122 female participants (39.4%), and 188 male participants (60.6%), who all completed the WHOQOL-BREF and MMAS-8 questionnaire. Most of the participants were 66–70 years (35.8%) of age group, followed by 71–75 years (24.2%), 60–65 years (22.3%), 76–80 years (13.9%), and 81 above years (3.9%) respectively. The majority of the study participants were from the In-patient ward (86.1%) and 13.9% were from the Out-patient department of the hospital. The majority of the subjects had medium adherence (47.1%) to the medication followed by low adherence (42.3%) and high adherence (10.6%) respectively.

Table 2. Sociodemographic characteristics of study participants.

Variables Frequency (n) Percentage (%)
Age group
60–65 years 69 22.3
66–70 years 111 35.8
71–75 years 75 24.2
76–80 years 43 13.9
81 and above 12 3.9
Gender
Male 188 60.6
Female 122 39.4
In-Patient 267 86.1
Out-Patients 43 13.9
Adherence
High 33 10.6
Medium 146 47.1
Low 131 42.3

Table 3 shows descriptive statistics of QOL score concerning the four domains of WHOQOL- BREF questionnaire response of the study participants. Table 4 illustrates the correlations between four domains of the WHOQOL-BREF score and MMAS-8. A statistically significant correlation was observed between medication adherence and DOM3 of the WHOQOL-BREF score. Further, there is also a statistically significant correlation between all four domains of the WHOQOL-BREF score.

Table 3. Test dataset descriptive statistics: WHOQOL-BREF.

Domains N Minimum Maximum QOL score Mean Standard Deviation
Physical 310 13 94 45.65 12.65
Psychological 310 13 94 46.64 10.47
Social Relations 310 19 100 63.67 11.65
Environmental 310 13 75 54.71 10.21

Table 4. Correlation coefficients in medication adherence (MMAS-8) and four domains of WHOQOL-BREF.

Medication Adherence DOM1 DOM2 DOM3 DOM4
Medication Adherence Correlation Coefficient 1 0.011 -0.053 0.107 -0.038
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.853 0.349 0.050 0.506
DOM1 Correlation Coefficient 0.011 1 0.551** 0.237** 0.289**
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.853 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
DOM2 Correlation Coefficient -0.053 0.551** 1 0.210** 0.306**
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.349 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
DOM3 Correlation Coefficient 0.107 0.237** 0.210** 1 0.076
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.050 <0.001 <0.001 0.181
DOM4 Correlation Coefficient -0.038 0.289** 0.306** 0.076 1
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.506 <0.001 <0.001 0.181

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

This study employed paired t-tests and ANOVA to assess the significant differences between the mean scores of various domain ratings. According to the data shown in Table 5, statistically significant differences were seen across all four distinct domains (pair 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6) of the WHOQOL-BREF score, except for the comparison between pair 1 (DOM1 and DOM2).

Table 5. Paired t-test for the four domains of WHOQOL-BREF.

Paired Differences
Mean SD 95% CI of the difference t test df Sig (2 tailed)
Lower Upper
PAIR 1
DOM1–DOM2
-0.99 11.12 -2.23 0.24 -1.57 309 0.117
PAIR 2
DOM1–DOM3
-18.02 15.04 -19.70 -16.34 -21.09 309 <0.001
PAIR 3
DOM1–DOM4
-9.06 13.77 -10.60 -7.52 -11.59 309 <0.001
PAIR 4
DOM2–DOM3
-17.02 13.93 -18.58 -15.47 -21.51 309 <0.001
PAIR 5
DOM2–DOM4
-8.07 12.18 -9.43 -6.71 -11.66 309 <0.001
PAIR 6
DOM 3–DOM4
8.95 14.90 7.28 10.62 10.58 309 <0.001

Significance p-value<0.05; SD-Standard deviation; df–degree of freedom; CI- confidence interval.

Among the several domains evaluated the domain with the highest satisfaction score was DOM3, with a mean value of 64.91. Conversely, the domain with the lowest satisfaction score was DOM1, with a mean value of 41.83. The mean score of four domains and total of WHOQOL-BREF score according to age group, gender, IP/OP, and MMAS-8 are presented in Table 6. A statistically significant difference is observed about gender and Domain 3 of the WHOQOL-BREF score with p-value <0.05. The findings of Backward Multiple Linear Regression are presented in Table 7, indicating a significant association between the variable’s "gender" and "MMAS-8" with the total WHOQOL score.

Table 6. Comparison of WHOQOL-BREF transformed scores in four domains according to age-group, gender IP/OP, and medication adherence.

Parameters N Physical Health Psychological Social Relations Environ mental
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Age-group
 60–65 69 45.69 13.17 46.59 11.77 63.31 10.88 54.95 10.72
 66–70 111 45.99 10.66 47.56 9.57 64.34 11.76 56.00 9.49
 71–75 75 46.49 13.90 45.73 10.37 63.66 10.84 53.29 10.64
 76–80 43 44.30 14.15 45.09 10.99 62.27 14.41 52.58 10.63
 81 and above 12 41.83 13.88 49.66 9.28 64.58 10.17 58.00 7.78
 p-value 0.739 0.499 0.893 0.171
Gender
 Male 188 46.17 13.11 47.18 10.33 64.91 11.04 55.00 9.76
 Female 122 44.85 11.90 45.18 10.66 61.76 12.34 54.28 10.89
 p-value 0.371 0.259 0.020 * 0.549
OP/IP
 Op 43 45.38 12.52 46.33 10.12 63.86 11.60 54.36 10.07
 Ip 267 47.32 13.08 48.55 12.35 62.48 12.07 56.90 10.86
 p-value 0.351 0.197 0.473 0.130
Medication Adherence
 High 33 42.36 11.03 45.84 13.62 60.06 14.57 54.87 9.09
 Medium 146 46.95 12.48 47.78 10.13 63.56 11.90 55.18 10.66
 Low 131 45.03 13.09 45.85 9.87 64.70 10.40 54.16 10.00
 p-value 0.130 0.196 0.122 0.704

*significant p-value <0.05; IP-In-patient; OP-Out-patient; SD Standard deviation.

Table 7. Backward multiple linear regression of significant factors associated with WHOQOL-BREF.

Domains Variables Unstandardized coefficients Standardized coefficients t p-value
B SE Beta
Domain 3 Gender -3.369 1.357 -0.141 -2.483 0.014 *
Medication adherence 1.950 1.008 0.110 1.935 0.050 *

*Significant p-value <0.05.

Discussion

The topic of quality of life (QOL) holds significant importance when considering geriatric patients [33]. The state of an individual’s health is widely recognized as a crucial determinant of their quality of life (QOL) since it significantly influences their degree of psychosocial functioning [34,35]. There has been a growing focus in the literature on the health-related quality of life of individuals with chronic diseases. This is due to the recognition that QOL can significantly impact an individual’s perspective on their condition and their approach to treatment, including their level of medication adherence [36,37].

The Quality of Life (WHOQOL-BREF) domains assessed were physical health, psychological health, social relationships), and environment). Among these domains, social relationships had the highest satisfaction score (mean: 64.91), while physical health had the lowest satisfaction score (mean: 41.83). The findings of the current study, where social relationships ranked as the domain with the highest satisfaction score and physical health had the lowest, are consistent with some previous research [3840]. Social relationships have been consistently identified as a significant contributor to overall quality of life, particularly among older adults. However, variations in domain satisfaction scores can be influenced by cultural and demographic factors. Comparing these findings to other studies provides a broader perspective on the relationship between domain satisfaction and overall quality of life. The Morisky medication adherence scale (MMAS-8) was employed to assess medication adherence. The findings of MMAS-8 revealed that a significant proportion of participants exhibited medium adherence (47.1%), followed by low adherence (42.3%), and high adherence (10.6%). Previous studies are consistent with these findings [4143]. In contrast to our study findings, Punnapurath et al. [44] conducted a study in which the level of adherence was reported as high in 82% of participants, medium in 16%, and low in 2%. The findings of medium, low, and high adherence levels among elderly patients emphasize the need for targeted interventions and support to improve medication adherence. This is especially important in this demographic, given the unique challenges they may face in manageing their medications. Understanding and addressing factors contributing to medication non-adherence among the elderly can have a significant impact on their overall well-being and the effectiveness of their medical treatments.

The statistically significant correlation was observed in our study between medication adherence and social relationships of the WHOQOL-BREF score aligns with the previous research [4547], highlighting the importance of social connections in influencing medication adherence and, by extension, quality of life among elderly patients. Prior research has indicated that anxiety and sadness play significant roles in the quality of life of individuals living with chronic illnesses [46]. In their study, Cohen [48] observed a significant association between quality of life and social support among individuals diagnosed with Huntington’s disease. Untas et al. [49] proposed that a correlation exists between inadequate social support and increased mortality risk, reduced adherence to medical treatment, and diminished physical quality of life among those with chronic medical conditions. The findings imply that an individual’s social relationships, including interactions with family, friends, and the community, play a role in their ability and willingness to adhere to their prescribed medication regimens. Strong social support networks can positively influence a person’s motivation to follow their treatment plan.

The WHOQOL-BREF is designed to provide a comprehensive assessment of an individual’s quality of life. It considers physical, psychological, social, and environmental factors, acknowledging that these domains are not isolated but influence each other [50]. Our study finding revealed a statistically significant correlation between all four domains of the WHOQOL-BREF score. Similar findings were reported in previous studies [38,5154]. Clinicians and healthcare providers often use quality of life assessments to understand the impact of medical conditions and treatments on patients [55]. The observed correlations among domains emphasize the importance of addressing multiple aspects of a patient’s well-being to achieve holistic care. Agborsangaya et al. [56] support the idea that considering multiple quality-of-life domains can guide clinical decision-making. This finding reflects the idea that individuals’ well-being is influenced by various interconnected aspects of their lives and assessing these domains comprehensively can provide valuable insights for healthcare planning and interventions.

This study revealed statistically significant differences in mean scores across various domains of the WHOQOL-BREF (all pairs 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6) except the pair 1 (DOM1-DOM2) health domains. These findings agree with the previous studies among different populations [54,5760]. In contrast, there were no significant variations identified across all domains in other studies [61,62]. The lack of a significant difference between physical health and psychological health scores might indicate that, in this particular study population, these two domains are closely related or influenced by similar factors. Research has shown that physical health can have a substantial impact on psychological well-being and vice versa. For example, individuals with chronic physical conditions may experience psychological distress [63]. These findings highlight the multidimensional nature of quality of life and suggest potential areas for targeted interventions and healthcare planning.

The study revealed that, on average, males reported higher satisfaction ratings in all four domains of the WHOQOL-BREF compared to females. A statistically significant difference is observed about gender and Domain 3 of the WHOQOL-BREF score. Gender differences in the perception of quality of life have been documented in various studies [45,6466]. A study by Choo et al. [67] found that gender played a significant role in how individuals assessed their quality of life, with males reporting higher scores in several domains. The higher mean and percentage of satisfaction ratings among males in the physical health domain (DOM1) may indicate that, in this particular study population, males perceived themselves as having better physical health. This could be due to differences in health behaviors, access to healthcare, or reporting biases between genders. Similarly, the higher satisfaction ratings in the psychological health domain (DOM2) among males might suggest that they reported better psychological well-being. However, it’s essential to consider that cultural and societal factors can influence how individuals, especially men, express their emotional and psychological states [68]. The finding of greater satisfaction ratings among males in the social relationships domain (DOM3) may be noteworthy. It could imply that, in this specific population, males felt more satisfied with their social interactions, social support, and relationships. This might reflect differences in the quality and nature of social relationships between genders [69]. The higher mean and percentage of satisfaction ratings in the environmental domain (DOM4) among males could suggest that they perceived their living conditions, access to resources, and opportunities more positively compared to females. Social and economic factors may contribute to these differences [51].

The Backward Multiple Linear Regression analysis further confirmed the significance of gender and medication adherence (MMAS-8) in influencing the total WHOQOL score. This underscores the multifaceted nature of quality of life and the importance of both gender and medication adherence in determining overall well-being among the elderly. Medication adherence has been recognized as a crucial factor in achieving positive health outcomes and improving the quality of life, particularly among individuals with chronic conditions [70]. Many individuals, especially elderly patients, manage chronic conditions that require consistent medication adherence. Non-adherence can lead to worsened health and decreased quality of life [71]. Gender can influence the availability and nature of social support networks. The quality and quantity of social relationships are linked to psychological and emotional well-being [72].

The present study’s findings highlight the complex and interrelated factors that influence the quality of life and medication adherence among elderly individuals. We’ve illuminated the significance of addressing medication adherence issues, understanding gender-specific disparities in quality of life, and recognizing the multifaceted nature of well-being. These insights have practical implications for healthcare providers and policymakers, emphasizing the need for tailored interventions that consider the unique needs and challenges faced by elderly patients. By adopting a holistic, patient-centered approach that integrates medical care with strategies to enhance medication adherence and promote social support, we can aspire to enhance the quality of life of our ageing population. This study underscores the importance of continued research and proactive efforts to ensure the optimal health and happiness of our elderly citizens.

While our study primarily focused on assessing the correlation between medication adherence and QOL domains, we acknowledge the importance of exploring underlying factors contributing to medication non-adherence. These factors may include socio-demographic characteristics, health beliefs, social support networks, access to healthcare services, and individual perceptions of medication necessity and concerns. Understanding the interplay between these factors and medication adherence is essential for developing targeted interventions aimed at improving both medication adherence and overall QOL. By identifying barriers to medication adherence and addressing them through tailored interventions, healthcare providers can effectively support elderly patients in managing their medications and enhancing their well-being. Furthermore, integrating strategies to promote medication adherence into comprehensive healthcare plans can lead to better health outcomes and improved QOL for elderly individuals living with chronic conditions.

Limitations

The study was conducted in a single medical college and hospital, which may not fully represent the diverse elderly population. Participants were limited to those seeking care at this specific institution, potentially introducing selection bias, and limiting the generalizability of the findings. The study design is cross-sectional, which means data was collected at a single point in time. This hinders the chances to establish differences of assessment over time. Longitudinal studies would be beneficial for understanding how medication adherence and quality of life evolve in the elderly. Quality of life is inherently subjective, and its assessment can be influenced by personal perceptions and cultural norms. While the WHOQOL-BREF is a validated tool, individual interpretations may vary.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the study highlights the intricate relationship between medication adherence and quality of life among elderly patients, shedding light on gender differences in QOL perceptions. The significant association observed between medication adherence (assessed using MMAS-8) and QOL (evaluated using WHOQOL-BREF) underscores the importance of addressing medication adherence issues to enhance overall well-being in this vulnerable population. Moreover, the notable gender disparities in QOL ratings underscore the necessity for gender-sensitive healthcare interventions for the elderly. By considering these insights, healthcare providers can develop tailored interventions that address medication adherence challenges and improve QOL outcomes among elderly patients. However, further research is warranted to explore specific factors influencing medication adherence and QOL in this demographic, and longitudinal studies can provide deeper insights into effective strategies for enhancing both medication adherence and QOL. Through ongoing research and tailored interventions, holistic care and well-being of elderly individuals can be improved.

Supporting information

S1 Data

(SAV)

pone.0302546.s001.sav (5.9KB, sav)

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the medical staff and geriatric patients of Yenepoya Medical College and Hospital and Yenepoya Pharmacy college & Research Centre for providing valuable cooperation to complete this study successfully.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Cristea M, Noja GG, Stefea P, Sala AL. The impact of population ageing and public health support on EU labor markets. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17: 1439. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17041439 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Angadi NB, Kavi A, Torgal SS. Therapeutic adherence among elderly with chronic diseases residing in urban area of South India–A descriptive cross-sectional study. Biomed Pharmacol J. 2020;13: 2109–2116. doi: 10.13005/bpj/2092 [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Rajan SI. Population ageing and health in India. Mumbai, Republic of India: Centre for Enquiry into Health and Allied Themes; 2006.
  • 4.Doggrell SA. Adherence to medicines in the older-aged with chronic conditions: does intervention by an allied health professional help? Drugs Ageing. 2010;27: 239–254. doi: 10.2165/11532870-000000000-00000 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Cárdenas-Valladolid J, Martín-Madrazo C, Salinero-Fort MA, Carrillo de-Santa Pau E, Abánades-Herranz JC, de Burgos-Lunar C et al. Prevalence of adherence to treatment in homebound elderly people in primary health care: a descriptive, cross-sectional, multicentre study. Drugs Ageing. 2010;27: 641–651. doi: 10.2165/11537320-000000000-00000 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Ciziceno M. The conceptions of quality of life, wellness and well-being: A literature review. Sport and quality of life: practices, habits and lifestyles; 2022. pp. 11–27. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Park CL, Kubzansky LD, Chafouleas SM, Davidson RJ, Keltner D, Parsafar P et al. Emotional well-being: what it is and why it matters. Affect Sci. 2023;4: 10–20. doi: 10.1007/s42761-022-00163-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Marcos-Pardo PJ, Orquin-Castrillón FJ, Gea-García GM, Menayo-Antúnez R, González- Gálvez N, Vale RGS et al. Effects of a moderate-to-high intensity resistance circuit training on fat mass, functional capacity, muscular strength, and quality of life in elderly: A randomized controlled trial. Sci Rep. 2019;9: 7830. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-44329-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Turabian J. Strategies and methods to improve compliance in special patient groups and with specific health problems. Arch Community Med Public Health. 2020;6: 104–109. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Grandieri A, Trevisan C, Gentili S, Vetrano DL, Liotta G, Volpato S. Relationship between People’s interest in medication adherence, health literacy, and self-care: an infodemiological analysis in the pre- and post-COVID-19 era. J Pers Med. 2023;13: 1090. doi: 10.3390/jpm13071090 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Upamali S, Rathnayake S. Perspectives of older people with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes mellitus towards medication adherence: A qualitative study. PLOS ONE. 2023;18: e0289834. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0289834 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Nestola T, Cesari M. WHO approach to healthy ageing. In: Geriatric medicine: a person centered evidence based approach. Springer; 2022. pp. 1–21. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Verdoorn S, Kwint HF, Blom JW, Gussekloo J, Bouvy ML. Effects of a clinical medication review focused on personal goals, quality of life, and health problems in older persons with polypharmacy: a randomised controlled trial (DREAMeR-study). PLOS Med. 2019;16: e1002798. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002798 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Sharma A. Differentials in medication non-adherence in India: does place of living matter? In: The empathic city: an urban health and wellbeing perspective. Springer; 2023. pp. 241–256. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Menditto E, Orlando V, De Rosa G, Minghetti P, Musazzi UM, Cahir C et al. Patient centric pharmaceutical drug product design—the impact on medication adherence. Pharmaceutics. 2020;12: 44. doi: 10.3390/pharmaceutics12010044 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Khezrian M, McNeil CJ, Murray AD, Myint PK. An overview of prevalence, determinants and health outcomes of polypharmacy. Ther Adv Drug Saf. 2020;11: 2042098620933741. doi: 10.1177/2042098620933741 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Anoopkumar-Dukie S, Mey A, Hall S, Bernaitis N, Davey AK, Plummer D. Non-prescription medicines may contribute to non-adherence to prescription medicines in people living with chronic health conditions. Int J Clin Pract. 2020;74: e13489. doi: 10.1111/ijcp.13489 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.G P, Manoj S, Thomas A. A community based study on the consequence of polypharmacy in the quality of life among geriatric population. Int J Res Rev. 2021;8: 202–220. doi: 10.52403/ijrr.20210528 [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Souliotis K, Giannouchos TV, Golna C, Liberopoulos E. Assessing forgetfulness and polypharmacy and their impact on health-related quality of life among patients with hypertension and dyslipidemia in Greece during the COVID-19 pandemic. Qual Life Res. 2022;31: 193–204. doi: 10.1007/s11136-021-02917-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Witkop ML, Lambing A, Nichols CD, Munn JE, Anderson TL, Tortella BJ. Interrelationship between depression, anxiety, pain, and treatment adherence in hemophilia: results from a US cross-sectional survey. Patient Preference Adherence. 2019;13: 1577–1587. doi: 10.2147/PPA.S212723 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Jude EB, Malecki MT, Gomez Huelgas R, Prazny M, Snoek F, Tankova T et al. Expert panel guidance and narrative review of treatment simplification of complex insulin regimens to improve outcomes in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Ther. 2022;13: 619–634. doi: 10.1007/s13300-022-01222-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Tan JP, Cheng KKF, Siah RCJ. A systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of education on medication adherence for patients with hypertension, hyperlipidaemia and diabetes. J Adv Nurs. 2019;75: 2478–2494. doi: 10.1111/jan.14025 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Bollmeier SG, Hartmann AP. Management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a review focusing on exacerbations. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2020;77: 259–268. doi: 10.1093/ajhp/zxz306 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Burnier M, Polychronopoulou E, Wuerzner G. Hypertension and drug adherence in the elderly. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2020;7: 49. doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2020.00049 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Schwarz T, Schmidt AE, Bobek J, Ladurner J. Barriers to accessing health care for people with chronic conditions: a qualitative interview study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022;22: 1037. doi: 10.1186/s12913-022-08426-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Kvarnström K, Westerholm A, Airaksinen M, Liira H. Factors contributing to medication adherence in patients with a chronic condition: a scoping review of qualitative research. Pharmaceutics. 2021;13: 1100. doi: 10.3390/pharmaceutics13071100 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Shen Z, Ding S, Shi S, Zhong Z. Association between social support and medication literacy in older adults with hypertension. Front Public Health. 2022;10: 987526. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.987526 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Chalise H, Bohora P, Khanal T. Older people and social security system in Nepal. Gerontol Geriatr Res. 2022;8: 1075. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Bhattarai B, Walpola R, Mey A, Anoopkumar-Dukie S, Khan S. Barriers and strategies for improving medication adherence among people living with COPD: a systematic review. Respir Care. 2020;65: 1738–1750. doi: 10.4187/respcare.07355 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Skevington SM, Lotfy M, O’Connell KA, WHOQOL Group. The World Health Organization’s WHOQOL-bref quality of life assessment: psychometric properties and results of the international field trial. A report from the WHOQOL group. Qual Life Res. 2004;13: 299–310. doi: 10.1023/B:QURE.0000018486.91360.00 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Bulamu NB, Kaambwa B, Ratcliffe J. A systematic review of instruments for measuring outcomes in economic evaluation within aged care. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015;13: 179. doi: 10.1186/s12955-015-0372-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Ilić I, Šipetić S, Grujičić J, Mačužić IŽ, Kocić S, Ilić M. Psychometric properties of the world health organization’s quality of life (WHOQOL-bref) questionnaire in medical students. Medicina (Kaunas). 2019;55: 772. doi: 10.3390/medicina55120772 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Tański W, Wójciga J, Jankowska-Polańska B. Association between malnutrition and quality of life in elderly patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Nutrients. 2021;13: 1259. doi: 10.3390/nu13041259 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Degl’Innocenti A, Elmfeldt D, Hofman A, Lithell H, Olofsson B, Skoog I et al. Health-related quality of life during treatment of elderly patients with hypertension: results from the Study on COgnition and Prognosis in the Elderly (SCOPE). J Hum Hypertens. 2004;18: 239–245. doi: 10.1038/sj.jhh.1001657 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Katsi V, Kallistratos MS, Kontoangelos K, Sakkas P, Souliotis K, Tsioufis C et al. Arterial hypertension and health-related quality of life. Front Psychiatry. 2017;8: 270. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2017.00270 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Megari K. Quality of life in chronic disease patients. Health Psychol Res. 2013;1: e27. doi: 10.4081/hpr.2013.e27 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Adams RJ. Improving health outcomes with better patient understanding and education. Risk Manag Health c Policy. 2010;3: 61–72. doi: 10.2147/RMHP.S7500 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Min SK, Kim KI, Lee CI, Jung YC, Suh SY, Kim DK. Development of the Korean versions of WHO Quality of Life scale and WHOQOL-bref. Qual Life Res. 2002;11: 593–600. doi: 10.1023/a:1016351406336 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Wong FY, Yang L, Yuen JWM, Chang KKP, Wong FKY. Assessing quality of life using WHOQOL-bref: A cross-sectional study on the association between quality of life and neighborhood environmental satisfaction, and the mediating effect of health-related behaviors. BMC Public Health. 2018;18: 1113. doi: 10.1186/s12889-018-5942-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Ohaeri JU, Awadalla AW. The reliability and validity of the short version of the WHO Quality of Life Instrument in an Arab general population. Ann Saudi Med. 2009;29: 98–104. doi: 10.4103/0256-4947.51790 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Vrijens B, De Geest S, Hughes DA, Przemyslaw K, Demonceau J, Ruppar T et al. A new taxonomy for describing and defining adherence to medications. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2012;73: 691–705. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2012.04167.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Sabaté E. Adherence to long-term therapies: evidence for action. World Health Organization; 2003.
  • 43.Lee SY, Lee S, Lee W. Association between medication adherence to chronic diseases and shift-work schedules in the Korean working population. Sci Rep. 2022;12: 22595. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-26618-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Punnapurath S, Vijayakumar P, Platty PL, Krishna S, Thomas T. A study of medication compliance in geriatric patients with chronic illness. J Fam Med Prim Care. 2021;10: 1644–1648. doi: 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_1302_20 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Ha NT, Duy HT, Le NH, Khanal V, Moorin R. Quality of life among people living with hypertension in a rural Vietnam community. BMC Public Health. 2014;14: 833. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-14-833 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Kim K, Kang GW, Woo J. The quality of life of hemodialysis patients is affected not only by medical but also psychosocial factors: a canonical correlation study. J Korean Med Sci. 2018;33. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2018.33.e111 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Majerníková Ľ, Obročníková A. Relationship between the quality of life and the meaning of life in cancer patient. Nurs 21st Century. 2017;16: 13–17. doi: 10.1515/pielxxiw-2017-0012 [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Cohen SD. Social support interventions will improve the quality of life of ESRD patients. In: Seminars in dialysis. Wiley Online Library; 2013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Untas A, Thumma J, Rascle N, Rayner H, Mapes D, Lopes AA et al. The associations of social support and other psychosocial factors with mortality and quality of life in the dialysis outcomes and practice patterns study. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2011;6: 142–152. doi: 10.2215/CJN.02340310 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Lodhi FS, Montazeri A, Nedjat S, Mahmoodi M, Farooq U, Yaseri M et al. Assessing the quality of life among Pakistani general population and their associated factors by using the World Health Organization’s quality of life instrument (WHOQOL-bref): a population based cross-sectional study. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2019;17: 9. doi: 10.1186/s12955-018-1065-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Gholami A, Jahromi LM, Zarei E, Dehghan A. Application of WHOQOL-bref in measuring quality of life in health-care staff. Int J Prev Med. 2013;4: 809–817. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Lucas-Carrasco R, Laidlaw K, Power MJ. Suitability of the WHOQOL-bref and WHOQOL- OLD for Spanish older adults. Ageing Ment Health. 2011;15: 595–604. doi: 10.1080/13607863.2010.548054 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Iqbal MS, Kassab YW, Al-Saikhan FI, Almalki ZS, Haseeb A, Iqbal MZ et al. Assessing quality of life using WHOQOL-bref: A cross-sectional insight among patients on warfarin in Malaysia. Saudi Pharm J. 2020;28: 936–942. doi: 10.1016/j.jsps.2020.06.014 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Tsutsumi A, Izutsu T, Kato S, Islam MA, Yamada HS, Kato H et al. Reliability and validity of the Bangla version of WHOQOL‐ bref in an adult population in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2006;60: 493–498. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1819.2006.01537.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.AlRuthia Y, Sales I, Almalag H, Alwhaibi M, Almosabhi L, Albassam AA et al. The relationship between health-related quality of life and trust in primary care physicians among patients with diabetes. Clin Epidemiol. 2020;12: 143–151. doi: 10.2147/CLEP.S236952 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Agborsangaya CB, Lau D, Lahtinen M, Cooke T, Johnson JA. Health-related quality of life and healthcare utilization in multimorbidity: results of a cross-sectional survey. Qual Life Res. 2013;22: 791–799. doi: 10.1007/s11136-012-0214-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Ali U, Bharuchi V, Ali NG, Jafri SK. Assessing the quality of life of parents of children with disabilities using WHOQoL BREF during COVID-19 pandemic. Front Rehabil Sci. 2021;2: 708657. doi: 10.3389/fresc.2021.708657 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Feelemyer JP, Jarlais DCD, Arasteh K, Phillips BW, Hagan H. Changes in quality of life (WHOQOL-bref) and addiction severity index (ASI) among participants in opioid substitution treatment (OST) in low and middle income countries: an international systematic review. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2014;134: 251–258. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2013.10.011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Jaracz K, Kalfoss M, Górna K, Baczyk G. Quality of life in Polish respondents: psychometric properties of the Polish WHOQOL–bref. Scand J Caring Sci. 2006;20: 251–260. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6712.2006.00401.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Nedjat S, Montazeri A, Holakouie K, Mohammad K, Majdzadeh R. Psychometric properties of the Iranian interview-administered version of the World Health Organization’s Quality of Life Questionnaire (WHOQOL-bref): a population-based study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2008;8: 61. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-8-61 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Jang Y, Hsieh CL, Wang YH, Wu YH. A validity study of the WHOQOL-bref assessment in persons with traumatic spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004;85: 1890–1895. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2004.02.032 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Malibary H, Zagzoog MM, Banjari MA, Bamashmous RO, Omer AR. Quality of Life (QoL) among medical students in Saudi Arabia: a study using the WHOQOL-bref instrument. BMC Med Educ. 2019;19: 344. doi: 10.1186/s12909-019-1775-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Löwe B, Spitzer RL, Williams JB, Mussell M, Schellberg D, Kroenke K. Depression, anxiety and somatization in primary care: syndrome overlap and functional impairment. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2008;30: 191–199. doi: 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2008.01.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Cruz LN, Polanczyk CA, Camey SA, Hoffmann JF, Fleck MP. Quality of life in Brazil: normative values for the WHOQOL-bref in a southern general population sample. Qual Life Res. 2011;20: 1123–1129. doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-9845-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Sathvik BS, Parthasarathi G, Narahari MG, Gurudev KC. An assessment of the quality of life in hemodialysis patients using the WHOQOL-bref questionnaire. Indian J Nephrol. 2008;18: 141–149. doi: 10.4103/0971-4065.45288 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Noerholm V, Groenvold M, Watt T, Bjorner JB, Rasmussen NA, Bech P. Quality of life in the Danish general population–normative data and validity of WHOQOL-bref using Rasch and item response theory models. Qual Life Res. 2004;13: 531–540. doi: 10.1023/B:QURE.0000018485.05372.d6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Choo J, Jeon S, Lee J. Gender differences in health-related quality of life associated with abdominal obesity in a Korean population. BMJ Open. 2014;4: e003954. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003954 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Addis ME, Mahalik JR. Men, masculinity, and the contexts of help seeking. Am Psychol. 2003;58: 5–14. doi: 10.1037/0003-066x.58.1.5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Kneavel M. Relationship between gender, stress, and quality of social support. Psychol Rep. 2021;124: 1481–1501. doi: 10.1177/0033294120939844 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Collado-Mateo D, Lavín-Pérez AM, Peñacoba C, Del Coso J, Leyton-Román M, Luque- Casado A et al. Key factors associated with adherence to physical exercise in patients with chronic diseases and older adults: an umbrella review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18: 2023. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18042023 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Osterberg L, Blaschke T. Adherence to medication. N Engl J Med. 2005;353: 487–497. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra050100 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Umberson D, Karas Montez J, Social relationships and health: A flashpoint for health policy. J Health Soc Behav. 2010;51(1): S54–S66. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Md Feroz Kabir

6 Mar 2024

PONE-D-23-42318Impact of medication adherence on quality of life among geriatric patients: a hospital-based cross-sectional study from IndiaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Sultana,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 20 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions, see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Md. Feroz Kabir, BPT, MPT, MPH, BPED, MPED

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. 

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

4. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: 

The authors extend their appreciation to the Deanship of Scientific Research at King Khalid University for funding this work through large group Project RGP-2/255/44

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. 

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: 

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. Please provide a complete Data Availability Statement in the submission form, ensuring you include all necessary access information or a reason for why you are unable to make your data freely accessible. If your research concerns only data provided within your submission, please write "All data are in the manuscript and/or supporting information files" as your Data Availability Statement.

6. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

7. Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables (should remain/ be uploaded) as separate "supporting information" files

8. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Authors,

Please go through the reviewer's comments and make the revision properly according to the comments.

Please consider that all comments are important and need explanation with proper revisions.

Thanks

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Dear authors,

Thank you so much for giving me the chance of reading and reviewing your draft. In my opinion, you’ve done a very good job trying to find relations between medication adherence and the quality of life of your patients. I think this assessment could enlighten different approaches to tailor our interventions moving the focus from the medication to its importance as a well-being way for the patients.

However, I believe there are some aspects that could be improved, which I will outline below, hoping that these suggestions will assist you in proposing a more robust manuscript.

The introduction section provides the necessary details to understand the reasons justifying the work, so I think it does not need to change.

Regarding the methodological section, I suggest to review the inclusion and exclusion criteria (page 6 and 7), as, if being older than 60 is included in the inclusion criteria, being younger than 60 cannot be an exclusion criterion (I always understand exclusion criteria as situations to exclude people who accomplish every inclusion criterion but we want to exclude for some reason, as you exclude for example “patients with cognitive impairment”). I think you should also define what the variables of personal medical history are (but I don’t know if there are any presented as results). Moreover, the definition of the WHOQOL-Bref is very extensive, yet that of the MMAS-8 is too brief. Perhaps more could be included about how the MMAS-8 is scored (page 8). At the data analysis subsection (page 9): SPSS is no longer the acronym for Statistical Package for Social Sciences, but for Statistical Product and Service Solutions, so my suggestion here is to avoid the full name and keep only the acronym. I also don't quite understand why bivariate analyses are conducted among the different dimensions of the WHOQOL-Bref (paired t-test).

Regarding the results section, figure 1 with the MMAS-8 test results is redundant since the same results are also summarized in Table 2, so I would suggest eliminating this figure. On the other hand, the second paragraph of this section (page 10) suggests a statistically significant correlation between the DOM-3 of the QOL questionnaire and the medication adherence score, while Table 4 offers a p-value of 0.059 (when a statistical significance was established for p<0.05 in the methodology section). I still don't understand if the information provided in Table 5 (paired t-test) regarding differences between QOL dimensions is relevant. Additionally, I believe Table 6 could be removed since the same information appears in Table 7. In Table 7, there are also errors in the sample values (for example, the N of the IP group should be 267, but the table indicates 26).

The main issue I find is in the discussion section. It appears too lengthy, and many phrases reiterate or delve into aspects already exposed in the introduction section. I believe this section would be much more interesting by deepen into the reasons that the authors consider to have impact over the medication adherence that could led to changes in each of the QOL domains and why you didn’t find these relations. Through this interpretation, you can propose improvements or different ways to approach tailored interventions oriented to improve the quality of life of the patients through better medication adherence than being centered only in the adherence by itself, as you suggest briefly in the conclusion. Due to your results, I wonder if the fact that the highest quality of life is found in those patients with intermediate adherence is because they are the group least concerned about their health. One interpretation would be that patients with higher adherence are more concerned and therefore have worse quality of life, but a higher level of commitment (greater adherence), whereas those with lower adherence have given up on therapeutic functionality. In this sense, it would also be interesting to explore the time they have had the pathology or been taking the medication.

Finally, and regarding the issues about the statistical significance previously commented, the conclusion must be reviewed once the results are corrected.

I hope these contributions help you enhance the presented manuscript.

Reviewer #2: General

This manuscript needs a thorough review of the language to improve grammatical, syntax and spelling errors. The thematic linkages must be improved also.

Introduction

• The section has a lot of language difficulties which must be improved

• Line 2-4. The sentence “…Based on the data from the 2001 census, it was seen that the population of individuals classified as elderly to approximately 77 million.” must be reconstructed to make it clearer.

• “Cardiovascular disease” must not start with a capital letter

• The spelling of ‘ageing’ vs aging should be consistent

Methodology

• The section has a lot of language difficulties which must be improved

• Under ‘Screening of patients”, kindly check the spellings of ‘in patient’ and ‘out patient’, and keep it consistent throughout the manuscript. These occur in other sections. Also check word repetitions e.g. ‘patients patients.

Results

The descriptions should be improved.

Discussion

The language and linkages must be improved.

Reviewer #3: Dear authors,

I appreciate the opportunity to read your manuscript, which is overall well written and deals with a very important issue.

However, in my perspective, it has some limitations to be accepted for publication as it is:

1. The title and objective are misleading to the presented results. The manuscript is actually focused on quality of life (QOL) and little is presented and discussed about medication adherence (MA) and its impact on QOL. Only about 10-15% of the discussion is about the impact of MA on QOL.

2. Also, to address the impact of MA on QOL you needed more factors that influence QOL, in order to reduce bias. Table 8 includes only two variables, which is very low in a regression model.

3. Some references in the introduction are not fully adjusted to the text (ref. 2, 3, 5, 10 and 17).

4. The methodology is well explained, however it's not clear how the MMAS-8 was applied - for all the medications the patients was on or individually for every pharmacological class? Adherence to a single medication is not related to adherence to all medications. Still, in this section exclusion criteria #1 and #4 are redundant.

5. There are small typographic errors throughout the manuscript, that can be easily corrected. However, in the results section, the range of the population was 31-92 years. How can that be if the inclusion criteria was 60 or more years old?

6. MA is addressed in a not specific manner in this section. No analysis is presented concerning differences between gender, age group, pharmacologic class, diseases... this can influence your conclusions.

7. Finally, you state that "The author(s) received no specific funding for this work", but at the end of the manuscript you write that there was a funding from the King Khalid University.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reviewer Comments.docx

pone.0302546.s002.docx (14.5KB, docx)
PLoS One. 2024 Nov 12;19(11):e0302546. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0302546.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


2 Apr 2024

Respected Reviewers,

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for taking the time to review our manuscript. Your thoughtful comments and suggestions have been immensely valuable in improving the quality and clarity of our work. We have carefully considered each of your points and made the necessary revisions to address them.

Your feedback on various aspects of the manuscript, including language, consistency, and content, has been instrumental in enhancing its overall quality. We appreciate your attention to detail and constructive criticism, which have undoubtedly strengthened the integrity and coherence of our research.

Once again, we would like to extend our heartfelt thanks for your invaluable contributions to this manuscript. Your expertise and insights have been invaluable, and we are grateful for the opportunity to benefit from your expertise. 

Reviewer #1: Dear authors,

Thank you so much for giving me the chance to read and review your draft. In my opinion, you’ve done a very good job trying to find relations between medication adherence and the quality of life of your patients. I think this assessment could enlighten different approaches to tailor our interventions moving the focus from the medication to its importance as a well-being way for the patients.

However, I believe some aspects could be improved, which I will outline below, hoping that these suggestions will assist you in proposing a more robust manuscript.

The introduction section provides the necessary details to understand the reasons justifying the work, so I think it does not need to change.

# Comment 1: Regarding the methodological section, I suggest to review the inclusion and exclusion criteria (page 6 and 7), as, if being older than 60 is included in the inclusion criteria, being younger than 60 cannot be an exclusion criterion (I always understand exclusion criteria as situations to exclude people who accomplish every inclusion criterion but we want to exclude for some reason, as you exclude for example “patients with cognitive impairment”). I think you should also define what the variables of personal medical history are (but I don’t know if there are any presented as results).

# Author’s Response: We appreciate the reviewer's thoughtful feedback regarding the methodological section of our study. Upon careful consideration, we agree that the inclusion and exclusion criteria require clarification to ensure coherence and transparency.

To address the inconsistency pointed out by the reviewer, we have revised the exclusion criteria to align with the inclusion criteria. Specifically, we have removed the criterion regarding patients younger than 60 years of age from the exclusion criteria, as it is redundant with the inclusion criterion of patients aged 60 years and above. This adjustment will enhance clarity and eliminate any potential confusion. Thank you for highlighting these areas for improvement, we have made the necessary revisions to enhance the clarity and rigor of our study methodology.

# Comment 2: Moreover, the definition of the WHOQOL-Bref is very extensive, yet that of the MMAS-8 is too brief. Perhaps more could be included about how the MMAS-8 is scored (page 8).

# Author’s Response: We appreciate the reviewer's feedback regarding the descriptions of the measurement tools used in our study. We have enhanced the description of the Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS-8) to provide a more comprehensive understanding of how it is scored.

The MMAS-8 is a widely used self-reported questionnaire designed to assess medication adherence. It consists of eight items, each with a binary response format (yes/no) or Likert scale. The scoring of MMAS-8 involves summing the responses to these items, with higher scores indicating greater adherence. Specifically, a score of 8 indicates high adherence, scores between 6 and 7 indicate medium adherence, and scores below 6 indicate low adherence. We have incorporated this information into the methodology section to ensure clarity and completeness regarding the scoring procedure of the MMAS-8. Thank you for the suggestion, and we have promptly updated the relevant section accordingly.

# Comment 3: At the data analysis subsection (page 9): SPSS is no longer the acronym for Statistical Package for Social Sciences, but for Statistical Product and Service Solutions, so my suggestion here is to avoid the full name and keep only the acronym.

# Author’s Response: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We have updated the data analysis subsection to use the acronym "SPSS" instead of the full name "Statistical Product and Service Solutions" to maintain consistency and accuracy. We appreciate the clarification and ensure that the appropriate revisions are made to the manuscript.

# Comment 4: I also don't quite understand why bivariate analyses are conducted among the different dimensions of the WHOQOL-Bref (paired t-test).

# Author’s Response: We appreciate the reviewer's comment and understand the need for clarification regarding the rationale behind conducting bivariate analyses among the different dimensions of the WHOQOL-Bref using paired t-tests.

The paired t-tests were conducted to assess whether there were statistically significant differences within each dimension of the WHOQOL-Bref questionnaire. By comparing the mean scores of each dimension before and after the intervention, we aimed to determine whether there were any significant changes in quality of life within specific domains. This approach helped us identify areas where interventions may have had a notable impact or where there may have been opportunities for targeted interventions in the future.

We have revised the manuscript to provide a clearer explanation of the purpose of the paired t-tests in the data analysis section. Thank you for bringing this to our attention, and we have ensured that the rationale for conducting these analyses is appropriately clarified.

# Comment 5: Regarding the results section, figure 1 with the MMAS-8 test results is redundant since the same results are also summarized in Table 2, so I would suggest eliminating this figure.

# Author’s Response: We appreciate the reviewer's feedback regarding the redundancy of Figure 1 depicting the MMAS-8 test results. We agreed that since the same results were summarized in Table 2, it might have been redundant to include Figure 1. Therefore, we removed Figure 1 from the results section to streamline the presentation of data and avoid unnecessary duplication. We appreciate the suggestion and ensured that the manuscript was updated accordingly.

# Comment 6: On the other hand, the second paragraph of this section suggests a statistically significant correlation between the DOM-3 of the QOL questionnaire and the medication adherence score, while Table 4 offers a p-value of 0.059 (when a statistical significance was established for p<0.05 in the methodology section).

# Author’s Response: We appreciate you bringing this to our attention. We apologize for the oversight. The correct p-value for the correlation between DOM-3 of the QOL questionnaire and the medication adherence score was indeed 0.050, as stated in Table 4. This value did meet the conventional threshold for statistical significance (p < 0.05), consistent with the methodology section We appreciate your understanding and diligence in ensuring accuracy in reporting. We ensured that the corrected information was reflected in the manuscript to accurately represent the statistical findings.

# Comment 7: I still don't understand if the information provided in Table 5 (paired t-test) regarding differences between QOL dimensions is relevant.

# Author’s Response: We appreciate the reviewer's inquiry regarding the relevance of the information provided in Table 5, specifically regarding the differences between Quality of Life (QOL) dimensions assessed using paired t-tests. The paired t-tests were conducted to assess whether there were statistically significant differences within each QOL dimension of the WHOQOL-BREF questionnaire. We aimed to examine potential variations in satisfaction levels across different domains of quality of life among the study participants. This analysis was relevant as it provided insights into the specific areas of well-being that may have been affected differently among the elderly population. We thank the reviewer for raising this concern, and we ensured that the revised manuscript provided a more comprehensive interpretation of the relevance of Table 5 findings in the context of our study objectives.

# Comment 8: Additionally, I believe Table 6 could be removed since the same information appears in Table 7. In Table 7, there are also errors in the sample values (for example, the N of the IP group should be 267, but the table indicates 26).

# Author’s Response: We appreciate the reviewer's suggestion regarding the removal of Table 6 and the identification of errors in Table 7. Regarding Table 6, we agreed that the information presented in this table was redundant with that in Table 7. Therefore, we removed Table 6 from the manuscript to streamline the presentation of data and avoid duplication. As for the errors identified in Table 7, we apologize for any inaccuracies. We carefully reviewed and corrected the sample values to ensure accuracy. Specifically, we rectified the sample size for the IP group to reflect the correct value of 267 instead of 26. We thank the reviewer for bringing these issues to our attention, and we promptly made the necessary revisions to the manuscript to address these concerns.

# Comment 9: The main issue I find is in the discussion section. It appears too lengthy, and many phrases reiterate or delve into aspects already exposed in the introduction section. I believe this section would be much more interesting by deepen into the reasons that the authors consider to have impact over the medication adherence that could led to changes in each of the QOL domains and why you didn’t find these relations. Through this interpretation, you can propose improvements or different ways to approach tailored interventions oriented to improve the quality of life of the patients through better medication adherence than being centered only in the adherence by itself, as you suggest briefly in the conclusion.

# Author’s Response: In response to the reviewer's feedback, we acknowledged the need to streamline the discussion section to focus more on the factors influencing medication adherence and their potential impact on quality of life (QOL) domains. We recognized the importance of delving deeper into the reasons behind medication adherence and its relationship with QOL domains, as well as exploring potential interventions to improve both medication adherence and overall QOL among elderly patients.

In our study, we primarily focused on assessing the correlation between medication adherence and QOL domains, as well as examining gender differences in QOL perceptions. However, we have acknowledged that a more in-depth exploration of the underlying factors influencing medication adherence and their specific effects on each QOL domain would provide valuable insights for designing targeted interventions. We appreciate the reviewer's suggestion to focus on proposing improvements or alternative approaches to enhance medication adherence and QOL among elderly patients. In our revised discussion section, we incorporated this feedback by providing a more detailed analysis of potential interventions and strategies for promoting medication adherence and enhancing QOL in this population. We believed that this approach enriched the discussion and provided actionable insights for healthcare providers and policymakers seeking to improve the well-being of elderly patients through targeted interventions.

# Comment 10: Due to your results, I wonder if the fact that the highest quality of life is found in those patients with intermediate adherence is because they are the group least concerned about their health. One interpretation would be that patients with higher adherence are more concerned and therefore have worse quality of life, but a higher level of commitment (greater adherence), whereas those with lower adherence have given up on therapeutic functionality. In this sense, it would also be interesting to explore the time they have had the pathology or been taking the medication.

# Author’s Response: In response to the reviewer's insightful comment, we acknowledge the importance of considering the potential underlying reasons for the observed relationship between medication adherence and quality of life (QOL) among elderly patients. The interpretation suggested by the reviewer, that patients with intermediate adherence may be the group least concerned about their health, while those with higher adherence may have a higher level of commitment but worse QOL, and those with lower adherence may have given up on therapeutic functionality, raises valuable points for further exploration. Indeed, exploring the time patients have had the pathology or been taking the medication could provide valuable insights into their medication adherence behaviors and QOL outcomes. For instance, individuals who have been managing their condition for a longer duration may have developed coping mechanisms or adapted to their treatment regimen, potentially influencing their adherence levels and QOL. Additionally, considering the impact of health-related concerns, motivation levels, and attitudes towards medication management on both adherence and QOL outcomes could provide a more nuanced understanding of the observed associations. We appreciate the reviewer's suggestion and plan to explore these aspects in future research to elucidate the complex relationship between medication adherence, QOL, and other relevant factors among elderly patients.

# Comment 11: Finally, and regarding the issues about the statistical significance previously commented, the conclusion must be reviewed once the results are corrected.

# Author’s Response: Thank you for bringing the statistical issues to our attention. We have thoroughly reviewed and addressed these concerns in the updated version of the manuscript. Corrections have been made to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the statistical analysis. We appreciate your diligence in identifying these issues, and we are confident that the revised manuscript now accurately reflects the study findings. If you have any further questions or require additional clarification, please do not hesitate to let us know.

# Comment 12: I hope these contributions help you enhance the presented manuscript.

# Author’s Response: Thank you for your feedback and suggestions. We appreciate your input, and we considered incorporating these contributions to enhance the manuscript. Your insights were valuable to us, and we are committed to improving the quality and relevance of our study. If you have any further recommendations or concerns, we are open to hearing them.

Reviewer #2: General

This manuscript needs a thorough review of the language to improve grammatical, syntax and spelling errors. The thematic linkages must be improved also.

Introduction

# Comment 1: The section has a lot of language difficulties which must be improved

# Author’s Response: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We have addressed the language difficulties in the introduction section and made the necessary corrections to improve clarity and readability. We appreciate your feedback and strive to ensure that the manuscript meets the highest standards of communication. If you have any further suggestions or concerns, please let us know.

# Comment 2: Line 2-4. The sentence “…Based on the data from the 2001 census, i was seen that the population of individuals classified as elderly to approximately 77 million.” must be reconstructed to make it clearer.

# Author’s Response: Thank you for your comment. We have revised the sentence to enhance clarity. According to findings from the 2001 census, it was noted that there were around 77 million individuals categorized as elderly in the population.

# Comment 3: “Cardiovascular disease” must not start with a capital letter

# Author’s Response: Tha

Attachment

Submitted filename: RESPONSE to REVIEWERS COMMENTS- Medication adherence paper.docx

pone.0302546.s003.docx (28.5KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Md Feroz Kabir

9 Apr 2024

Medication Adherence and Quality of Life among Geriatric Patients: Insights from a Hospital-Based Cross-Sectional Study in India

PONE-D-23-42318R1

Dear Rokeya Sultana,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Md. Feroz Kabir, BPT, MPT, MPH, BPED, MPED

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Please carefully respond to the comments in the proofreading of the article. Thanks

Reviewers' comments:

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Data

    (SAV)

    pone.0302546.s001.sav (5.9KB, sav)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Reviewer Comments.docx

    pone.0302546.s002.docx (14.5KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: RESPONSE to REVIEWERS COMMENTS- Medication adherence paper.docx

    pone.0302546.s003.docx (28.5KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES