1. Summary of results for each included study.

Behavioral interventions
References	Assessment methods	Statistical analysis	Study results
Brown 2009	All participants completed a 14‐page packet of self‐report measures. Adherence was measured with MEMS cap. To assess the equivalence of control and intervention groups, and to identify factors that could moderate the impact of the intervention, a collection of self‐report measures was applied (methods such as a single‐item self‐estimate of the number of missed doses during the preceding month, the Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire (BIPQ), Theory of Planed Behaviour (TPB), Multiple Ability Self Report Questionnaire (MASQ), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), Prospective and Retrospective Memory Questionnaire (PRMQ), the Liverpool Seizure Severity Scale (LSSS) were administered at baseline and at follow‐up.	Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Chi2 test.	Intervention participants showed improved adherence relative to controls on all 3 outcomes: doses taken in total (93.4% vs 79.1%), days on which correct dose was taken (88.7% vs 65.3%), and doses taken on schedule (78.8% vs 55.3%) (P < 0.01)
DiIorio 2009	Adherence was measured using MEMS cap and self‐reported medication adherence via Antiretrovial General Adherence Scale (AGAS) (at baseline and follow‐up assessment). The following scales were also used: Epilepsy Self‐Management Scale (follow‐up assessment only), Epilepsy Self‐Efficacy scale and knowledge about the epilepsy measured by Epilepsy Knowledge Questionnaire (EKQ)	Independent t‐test used to compare treatment and control group on variables assessed at follow‐up	The results on adherence were following: prescribed doses taken overall in the intervention group was 81.29% (SD 13.48) and doses taken on schedule 53.27% SD (17.74). The results for adherence and self‐efficacy were in the correct direction and statistically significant only at the 0.10 level, suggesting that the intervention may also improve confidence in self‐management
Educational interventions
References	Assessment methods	Statistical analysis	Study results
Dash 2015	Drug adherence and self‐care were measured respectively using the modified Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS) and the Epilepsy Self‐Efficacy Scale (ESES)	Statistical analysis was carried out using SPSS (version 16 for Windows), a paired t‐test was applied	In the intervention group, the pre‐test mean MMAS score was 6.58, whereas the post‐test mean MMAS score was 7.53; the difference was significant (P = 0.001). The mean MMAS scores for the control group's pre‐test and post‐test were 6.46 and 6.58 respectively, which were not significantly different (P = 0.224)
Dilorio 2011	Medication adherence was measured using the Medication Adherence scale (MAS ‐ 8‐item measurement of self‐reported medication‐taking behaviours); perceived stress was measured by Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) and the Revised Epilepsy Stressor Inventory (ESI‐R). Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), Epilepsy Self‐Management Scale (ESMS), Epilepsy Self‐Efficacy Scale (ESES), Epilepsy Knowledge Profile (EKP) and the Quality of Life in Epilepsy Scale‐10 (QOLIE‐10) measurements were also assessed	Repeated measures analyses of variance (ANOVA) were conducted using SPSS Version 18	Trends toward statistical significance were noted for medication adherence (P = 0.118), stress (P = 0.098), self‐management (P = 0.098), and knowledge (P = 0.077). Participants who completed WebEase modules (intervention group) reported an increase in self‐efficacy (P = 0.013), meaning that they were more positive about their ability to manage medication, stress, or sleep issues
Helgeson 1990	Blood test measuring serum drug level was used to assess adherence with medication. The following measurements were also performed: level of anxiety was assessed by the State‐Trait Anxiety Inventory, State Anxiety Scale (STAI), Washington Psychosocial Seizure Inventory (WPSI), the Acceptance of Disability (AD) scale, Sherer’s Self‐Efficacy Scale and Epilepsy knowledge and medical management 50‐item true‐false questionnaire	Repeated measures analyses of variance (ANOVA) and a series of paired t‐tests	Percentage change scores in blood AED levels (adherence) in the intervention group increased significantly F (1,24) = 4.18, P < 0.05 The treatment group showed a significant decrease in level of fear of death and brain damage due to seizures, F( 1,36) = 7.49 (P = 0.009) and a significant decrease in hazardous medical self‐management practices, F(1,36) = 29.67 (P = 0.0001)
Ibinda 2014	Improvement in adherence to AEDs was assessed by self‐report using the 4‐item Morisky Medication Adherence Scale. Plasma drug concentrations were measured using a fluorescence polarisation immunoassay analyser (TDxFLx Abbott Laboratories) Epilepsy beliefs were measured using KEBAS	Pearson’s Chi2 test, modified Poisson regression t‐tests and logistic regression. All statistical analyses were performed using STATA (version 12)	No significant difference in adherence to AEDs was noted between the 2 groups based on self‐reports (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.40; P = 1.00) or in detectable drug levels (OR 1.46, 95% CI 0.74 to 2.90; P = 0.28). No difference in seizure frequency was found between groups
Modi 2013	Caregivers completed baseline questionnaires and all families were provided with MEMS‐6 Track‐Cap to monitor adherence. Caregivers (intervention group) also completed several questionnaires: psychosocial (e.g. quality of life), epilepsy knowledge, social problem‐solving skills, epilepsy medication management, feasibility‐acceptability questionnaire, Medical Chart Review and background Information Form	Means, SDs and frequencies were measured using IBM SPSS statistics software (version 20)	Mean percentage change in adherence from baseline to post‐intervention was 31.5 (SD 52.9) for the intervention group and 9.3 (SD 8.7) for the control group (no significance levels were reported). The impact on quality of life due to the implementation of the intervention reported a significant benefit (mean 6.75 (SD 0.6)). Other outcomes measures included assessment of feasibility and acceptability of the adherence intervention
Pryse‐Phillips 1982	Serum drug levels of phenobarbitone, phenytoin, carbamazepine, sodium valproate, and ethosuximide were performed using a gas liquid chromatograph or by the EMITm method on each occasion where relevant	Comparisons of means in paired samples Student’s t‐test, correlation coefficients, and linear regressions were performed using an IBM computer	The results show whether information was given in oral form alone or both orally and in written form; adherence to drug treatment as measured by serum levels was not improved
Shope 1980	Adherence was assessed by measurement of serum drug levels using blood tests	Analyses of variance (ANOVA) analyses of co‐variance (ANCOVA) and Chi2 tests were performed	The mean score of the intervention group on the combined adherence score was 2.9, which is significantly higher than the mean score in the control group 2.2 (F(1,48) = 6.36, P = 0.015)
Mixed interventions
References	Assessment methods	Statistical analysis	Study results
Li 2013	To assess drug adherence, 6‐response‐options rating scales were applied. With regard to lifestyle or habits, 6 similar ratings were used to measure frequency of seizure‐provoking events. The subsequent seizure assessment for intervention group was obtained from the epilepsy tracking card. In control group medical adherence ratings were derived from self‐reported data and calculated AED adherence by counting the remaining pills to count the number of missed doses	Chi2 test, or correlated Chi2 test or Fisher’s exact test and one‐way ANOVA were used to conduct statistical analyses with SPSS (version 17.0)	Adherence improved in the intervention group, as most members (142 (77.6%) compared to 17 (9.6%)) rated their adherence as excellent or very good, but it remained nearly unchanged in the control group. A moderate correlation was found between the changes in AED adherence and seizure control (r = 0.4, P < 0.05), and a weaker correlation was found between lifestyle and seizure control (r = 0.328, P < 0.05). The percentage of participants reported a reduction in seizures in at least 50% (including those who were seizure‐free) rose to 79.8% in the intervention group, compared to 61.0% in the control group (P < 0.05).
Peterson 1984	Adherence was assessed by changes in plasma anticonvulsant levels (provided that the participant's medication regimen had not been altered in the preceding 2 weeks), a check of the participant's prescription record book to determine prescription refill frequency, medication seizure diary (to record Dosett container check) and participant appointment‐keeping frequency (those who had attended all scheduled appointments in the previous 6 months were considered compliant)	McNemar tests for related samples, Wilcoxon matched‐pair tests, Stuart‐Maxwell tests, and Student’s paired t‐tests, Chi2 tests, Mann‐Whitney tests, and Student’s unpaired t‐tests	Study shows that adherence (mean plasma levels) can be improved and seizure frequency lessened by compliance‐improving intervention. Although the differences between the 2 groups in mean anticonvulsant dosages were not statistically significant, they might be clinically important
Tang 2014* (*The study is presented in this review as both types of interventions: educational and mixed)	Adherence was measured using the 4‐item Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS‐4); seizure control was reported according to the participants’ records and telephone follow‐ups by the pharmacist; a questionnaire was developed to evaluate the level of each participant's knowledge of AEDs; the 31‐item Quality of Life in Epilepsy Inventory (QOLIE‐31) was used to measure the quality of life. Adherence, the AEDs knowledge, the number of seizures and other measures were evaluated at the beginning and at the end of follow‐up. The quality of life was only measured after intervention	All analyses were performed using the IBM SPSS statistics (version 19). Tests such as Pearson's Chi2 tests, student's t‐tests and Mann–Whitney U test were performed	The adherence and knowledge of AEDs increased greatly after intervention in all participants, the number of seizures and missed dosages also decreased. However, no significant differences were observed between 2 groups: increased adherence (62.3% vs 64.3%, P = 0.827); increased knowledge of AEDs (88.7% vs 80.4%, P = 0.231) and improved seizure control (64.2% vs 64.3%, P = 0.988)

SD: standard deviation