Skip to main content
. 2025 Apr 16;11:e64208. doi: 10.2196/64208

Table 3. Proportion of patients with poor adherence in the included studies.

Study Type of digital technology Follow-up Event ratea Odds ratio (95% CI)
Kekäle et al (2016) [46]

  • Face-to-face counseling

  • Interactive multimedia platforms

 9 months 1/35 vs 9/33 0.08 (0.01‐0.66)
Sikorskii et al (2018) [33]

  • Reminder phone calls

  • Disease self-management tool kits

 12 weeks 0/106 vs 0/108 1.02 (0.02‐51.82)
Eldeib et al (2019) [23]

  • Follow-up phone calls

 11 cycles 0/44 vs 3/38 0.13 (0.01‐2.73)
Greer et al (2020) [43]

  • Mobile app

 12 weeks 11/80 vs 20/86 0.53 (0.23‐1.18)
Hershman et al (2020) [21]

  • Text message

 3 years 238/290 vs 268/313 0.77 (0.50‐1.19)
Tan et al (2020) [48]

  • Text message

 1 year 59/123 vs 55/121 1.11 (0.67‐1.83)
Karaaslan-Eser and Ayaz-Alkaya (2021) [25]

  • Text message

 6 months 16/38 vs 28/39 0.29 (0.11‐0.74)
Mir et al (2022) [45

  • Follow-up by phone or internet (web portal)

 6 months 15/255 vs 26/265 0.57 (0.30‐1.11)
Park et al (2022) [24]

  • Mobile app integrated with a smart pill bottle reminder

 4 weeks 1/30 vs 3/27 0.28 (0.03‐2.83)
Singleton et al (2023) [47]

  • Text message

 6 months 3/42 vs 8/47 0.38 (0.09‐1.52)
Guio et al (2024) [14]

  • Interactive multimedia platforms

 At least 100 days following transplantation or 3 months after maintenance 1/16 vs 13/16 0.02 (0.01‐0.17)
Overall N/Ab N/A 345/1059 vs 433/1093 0.60 (0.47‐0.77); I2=73.1%
a

Event rate refers to the proportion of poor adherence in each study, measured by the specific method used in the study. Digital intervention users versus nonusers. Some event rate values have been converged based on the adherence data provided by studies.

b

N/A: not applicable