Association between the Medication Adherence and Treatment Satisfaction among Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in Guangdong Province, China

Abstract

To analyze the association between medication adherence and treatment satisfaction of the patients with type 2 diabetes at community health service center in China. Methods: 4,560 community T2DM patients were selected by cross-sectional study. We collected the patients' data including the socio-demographic, medication knowledge, medication adherence and treatment satisfaction of T2DM. Results: Among the 4,560 T2DM patients, less a half of patients had good medication adherence. The satisfaction scores in the Effectiveness(62.3 ± 7.1), Side Effects(81.1 ± 10.5), Convenience(63.7 ± 10.7), and Global Satisfaction domains(70.3 ±6.7) were low. There are positive correlation between adherence and overall treatment satisfaction score. We found that the main impact factors of medication adherence to antidiabetic therapy including educational level, income, duration of DM, pattern of antidiabetic treatment, presence of complication, number of medications, treatment satisfaction using logistic regression analysis. Conclusions: The T2DM patients' medication adherence and treatment satisfaction at community health service center of China are not good. Low satisfaction is an important factor to disease the community type 2 diabetes patients' medication adherence.

Medication Adherence and Contributing Factors Among Type 2 Diabetes Patients at Adama Hospital Medical College in Eastern Ethiopia

“…Adherence to anti-diabetic medication is a known cornerstone in the management of type 2 diabetic patients (Mirghani, 2019) (Zhou et al, 2019), and 49.3% in Cambodia (Nonogaki et al, 2019). The variation observed between this and other studies conducted elsewhere was majorly due to the difference in the operational definitions used, and the sample size across studies.…”

“…This finding was in line with 31.8% in Beirut, Lebanon (Mroueh et al, 2018). But, this study was much lower than 48.7% in Addis Ababa (Mesfin et al, 2017), 75.5% in Jimma (Teklay et al, 2013), and 85.1% in Gondar (Abebaw et al, 2016) studies in Ethiopia, 45.6% in Cameroon (Aminde et al, 2019), 58.2% in Gaborone, Botswana (Rwegerera et al, 2018), 40% in Ibadan (Adisa et al, 2011) and 72.5% in Lagos (Azodo & Omuemu, 2017) studies in Nigeria, 44.7% in Egypt (Nashat Hegazy, 2017), 38.5% in Ghana (Bruce et al, 2015), 47.3% in Gaza, State of Palestine (Almadhoun & Alagha, 2018), 40% in Riyadh (Aloudah et al, 2018) and 68.5% in Jeddah (Alshehri et al, 2020) studies in Saudi Arabia, 39% in Bangalore (Imran & Plathottam, 2017) and 50.9% in Karnataka (Kumar et al, 2021) studies in India, 53.6% in Bangladesh (Mannan et al, 2021), 43.1% in Guangdong Province, China (Zhou et al, 2019), and 49.3% in Cambodia (Nonogaki et al, 2019). The variation observed between this and other studies conducted elsewhere was majorly due to the difference in the operational definitions used, and the sample size across studies.…”

“…The MA is a complex process that is affected by many different factors (DiMatteo, 2004). The factors associated with MA are age, sex, marital status, education, income, alcohol consumption, exercise, presence of comorbidities, duration of DM, the pattern of anti-diabetic treatment, presence of complications, type of medication, number of medications, treatment duration, glycemic control, side effects, treatment satisfaction, patients physician relationship and communication and clients had a negative perception about medication (Almadhoun & Alagha, 2018; Aloudah et al, 2018; Alqarni et al, 2019; Aminde et al, 2019; Awodele & Osuolale, 2015; Bekele et al, 2021; Benrazavy & Ali, 2019; Lee et al, 2017; Mesfin et al, 2017; Olorunfemi & Ojewole, 2019; Raimi, 2017; Thapar et al, 2020; Yosef, 2021; Zhou et al, 2019).…”