Skip to main content
Download PDF

What is the effect of mobile phone text message reminders on medication adherence among adult type 2 diabetes mellitus patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BMC Endocrine Disorders volume 23, Article number: 18 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Globally, type 2 diabetes has become increasing. As little is known about the effect of educational intervention on this population, this systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the effectiveness of mobile phone text message reminders versus usual care to improve medication adherence among type 2 diabetes mellitus patients.

Methods

PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and African Journals Online, were searched. A random-effects model was employed to estimate combined effect sizes. Subgroup analyses were employed to investigate possible sources of heterogeneity between studies. The overall certainty of the evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.

Results

A total of 9 trials with 1,121 participants were included in the review. The pooled estimated impact of mobile phone text message reminders on medication adherence was (SMD: 0.36; 95%CI; 0.14, 0.59) compared to usual care groups among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. In addition, subgroup analyses revealed greater medication adherence levels in those studies with intervention durations of more than six months and with self-report/refill adherence scale measurement (SMD: 0.21; 95%CI: 0.02, 0.40) and (SMD: 0.45; 95%CI: 0.22, 0.68), respectively.

Conclusion

Mobile phone text messages can potentially lead to improved medication adherence levels in patients with Type 2 diabetes despite heterogeneity across the studies. Therefore, mobile phone text messaging when delivered in addition to usual care, have the potential to produce significant improvements in medication adherence.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Diabetes mellitus (DM) has become a widespread non-communicable health problem, resulting in significant morbidity and mortality [1]. About 422 million adults worldwide live with DM [2]. The International Diabetes Federation estimates that about 629 million people will be affected by 2045 [3]. About 80% of the affected people live in low-income countries[4]. In particular, type 2 diabetes (T2DM) accounts for more than 90% of all diabetes cases [5]. The increased burden is due to multiple risk factors such as physical inactivity, obesity, unhealthy diet, physical inactivity, family history, age [6, 7], and oxidative stress [8].

Medication non‐adherence is one of modern medicine's significant health challenges; poor medication adherence is associated with increased morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs. [9]. Improving adherence to medications for T2DM patients would help to maximize the clinical benefits for the wider population [10]. There is, therefore, considerable scope for increasing adherence to prescribed medicine, thereby reducing morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs.

Telemedicine can be a strategy for closer monitoring and intervention to achieve better metabolic control and help in the global care of individuals with concomitant chronic diseases [11]. Text messaging is increasingly used in medical practice to remind patients of clinic appointments, to report test results, and to adjust treatment doses [12]. In addition, text messages can help remind patients to take their medications, recognize who is not taking them and why, if any, and provide appropriate advice in such cases [13].

The use of text messages is vital for improving diabetes treatment adherence and glycemic control [14,15,16,17,18]. Therefore, mobile phone‐based interventions are of particular interest, given their low cost and potential for widespread delivery. However, no systematic review has specifically examined the effect of mobile phone text message interventions on adherence to medications for T2DM. Hence, the present review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effect of mobile phone text message interventions on medication adherence in patients with T2DM.

Methods

Protocol and registration

The study protocol was registered on Prospero (www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/) as recommended by the PRISMA statement [19] with the number (CRD42021285017).

Search strategy and data sources

Our search strategy employed the methodology of the peer review of electronic search strategies (PRESS) for systematic reviews [20]. We searched PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, African Journal Online, and Cochrane from January 2000 to March 4, 2022, for relevant articles (as authors are interested in up-to-date data). The search was conducted using medical subject heading (MeSH) terms and keywords: type 2 diabetes mellitus, diabetes mellitus, adult, short message system/SMS, text messaging, mobile phone text message, diabetes mellitus/drug therapy, medication adherence, health education, telemedicine, and randomized control trial. Date last searched March 4, 2022. The search was restricted to full texts, human studies, and English language publications. The entire search for PubMed is attached in Supplementary Table 1 and documented in our entry in Prospero.

Eligibility criteria

Following the PICOS model:

Patient, Population, or Problem

Adult (age > 18 years) patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Intervention

Mobile phone text message intervention or reminders.

Comparison: usual care or routine care groups of patients for type 2 diabetes mellitus.

The outcome you would like to measure or achieve: anti-diabetic medication adherence among type 2 diabetes mellitus patients.

Type of Study you want to find

A randomized control trial study (RCT) aimed at the effect of mobile phone text message intervention to improve medication adherence with quantitative results, ideally with means and standard deviations/errors reported.

Criteria for considering articles for inclusion

All published mobile phone text message intervention RCTs to improve medication adherence among type 2 diabetes mellitus patients were considered in this review. We limited papers considered to those published from 2000 and were a whole paper was available. Papers in English were considered. The Authors included studies comparing intervention and control groups.

Exclusion criteria

Any study not meeting the inclusion criteria or that did not report quantitative data of the relevant medication adherence score other than the RCTs study design. We excluded studies that used text messages and phone call interventions. Besides, we excluded studies where the means and standard deviations were missing for the meta-analyses.

Study selection

Two review authors (AM and BN) independently screened titles and abstracts of the search results and discarded studies that were not applicable. However, studies that might include relevant data or information on studies were retained initially. We retrieved the full-text study reports of all potentially eligible studies, and two review authors’ (AM and BN) independently screened them for inclusion, recording the reasons for excluding ineligible studies. We resolved disagreements through discussion until we reached a consensus or, if necessary, consulted another review author (YA). We identified and excluded duplicates and collated multiple reports of the same study so that each study, rather than each report, was the unit of interest in the review. Cohen's κappa was run to determine whether the two authors' judgments agreed on whether studies were included or excluded from the review. There was moderate agreement between the two authors’ judgments, κ = 0.809 (95% CI, 0.583 to 0.961), p = 0.001.

Data extraction and management

We generated a data extraction form and pilot-tested it. After verification, two review authors (AM and BN) independently extracted data from the included articles. Characteristics of included articles; the numbers of participants, type of participants, setting (countries and type 2 diabetes mellitus), interventions, comparisons, relevant outcomes with definitions, and information for any adjustments. Risk of bias assessment included articles such as the method used, domains assessed, and judgments. Characteristics of interventions; population (mean age, type 2 diabetes mellitus status), the form of mobile text message (amount of messaging, received reminders, motivational and supported messages, and advice on lifestyle behaviors like diets, physical activity, smoking cessation, medication, and appointment reminders), frequency, start and duration of intervention, measures of adherence to the intervention, and adherence to anti-diabetic medication.

We presented the review details and results in tables. Another two review authors (WS and TY) verified the extracted data. We resolved any discrepancies through discussion until we reached a consensus. Where any information from the reviews needed to be clarified or included, we accessed the published papers of the individual trials.

Risk of bias in individual studies

Three review authors (WS, YA, and TY) independently assessed the risk bias of the included articles. We used the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2) [21], which considers random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, blinding of outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, and other potential sources of bias. The risk of bias in the RCTs was examined using the method described in the RoB 2 tool. We categorized each domain as 'high risk,' 'low risk,' or 'some concerns' using the algorithms proposed in RoB 2. Next, we assessed the overall risk of bias. We considered a study: to be at high risk of bias when at least one domain was judged as being at high risk, to be at low risk when all domains were judged as being at low risk and to raise some concerns when at least one domain was judged to raise some concerns. However, no domains were judged as being at high risk of bias. Any disagreement was resolved through discussion and consensus, and if required, we consulted a third review author (AM).

Subgroup analysis and investigation of heterogeneity

We first assessed the heterogeneity by visual inspection of the forest plot. Then, we quantified statistical heterogeneity using the I2 statistic, which describes the percentage of total variation across studies due to heterogeneity rather than sampling error [22]. Finally, we conducted a subgroup analysis to explore the possible source of heterogeneity. We classified the measure of medication adherence into the Morisky adherence scale and self-report/refill. The results were reported individually and combined with the Morisky adherence scale and self-report/refill (i.e. Morisky adherence Vs self-report/refill). Additionally, we classified based on the duration of intervention, i.e. three months, six months, and 24 months duration. Again, the results were reported individually and combing the three (i.e. three months Vs six months Vs 24 months).

Sensitivity analysis

We performed the leave-out-one approach method.

Assessment of publication bias

Assessment of publication bias was carried out using a funnel plot and egger’s test.

Data synthesis

Using a random-effects model, the outcome was reported as a standardized mean difference (SMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). In addition, the papers' results were pooled, where data were comparable, using a meta-analysis package employing the Review Manager of the Cochrane Collaboration (RevMan 5.4, Cochrane Organization).

Summary of the findings and quality of the evidence in included articles

We created a summary of the findings table using medication adherence as the outcome. The overall quality of the evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach [23]. We summarized the quality of evidence using GRADE pro-GDT Cochrane online software [24]. The GRADE quality assessment component is comprised of methodological worth, indirectness of evidence, unexplained heterogeneity, imprecision, and the probability of publication bias. The GRADE approach is focused on determining within the study risk of bias. It has four levels of quality such as high-quality evidence, moderate quality, low quality, and shallow quality.

Results

Results of the search

After searching the databases and other sources, 238 records were identified. After screening titles and abstracts and full-text review, 9 studies were included and 228 studies were excluded for various reasons as shown in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

PRISMA flow diagram for study selection

Full size image

Characteristics of the included studies

We included nine studies with a total of 1,121 participants. The study characteristics, including demographics of the study, durations of intervention, frequency of the short message system, the content of the short message system, and measurement of medication adherence, are presented in Table 1. A total of 8 studies were randomized control trials [15,16,17, 25,26,27,28,29], and one study was quasi-experimental design [30]. In addition, a limited number of studies used the Trans-Theoretical Model [26] and behaviour change theories [27] as an education platform.

Table 1 Characteristics of the included studies
Full size table

Risk of bias in included studies

The assessment of the risk of bias in included studies is shown in Figs. 2 and 3. The methodological quality assessments of RCTs were conducted according to the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2) [21]. Eight out of nine studies [15,16,17, 25,26,27,28,29] designated random sequence generation, resulting in a low bias risk. Allocation concealment was described in 2 of the included studies [27, 28], which results in a low risk of bias due to the presence of allocation concealment. Five studies [15, 17, 25, 27, 28] described blinding participants and personnel as having a low risk of bias.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgments about each risk of bias as percentages across all included studies

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgments about each risk of bias in each included study

Full size image

The effect of mobile phone text messages on medication adherence

In the current meta-analysis, the pooled effect size of mobile phone text message intervention significantly improved medication adherence level (SMD: 0.36; 95%CI; 0.14, 0.59) compared to usual care groups among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (Fig. 4). However, the I2 statistics among the studies was 68%, indicating a moderate risk of heterogeneity.

Fig. 4
figure 4

The effect of mobile phone text message intervention to improve medication adherence

Full size image

Subgroup analysis

The results of subgroup analyses using the measures of medication adherence show that both the Morisky medication adherence scale (SMD: 0.33; 95%CI: 0.02, 0.64) and self-report/refill adherence (SMD: 0.45; 95%CI: 0.22, 0.68) reveals improvement of medication adherence (Fig. 5). In addition, six months and above interventions have demonstrated significant benefits in improving medication adherence among type 2 diabetes patients (Fig. 6).

Fig. 5
figure 5

Subgroup analysis based on measures of medication adherence

Full size image
Fig. 6
figure 6

Subgroup analysis based on the duration of intervention

Full size image

Evaluation of publication bias

We constructed a funnel plot and egger’s regression test to investigate potential publication bias. As illustrated in Fig. 7, the funnel plot's visual inspection revealed the studies' symmetrical distribution. Besides, egger’s regression test was (p = 0.34), indicating no publication bias.

Fig. 7
figure 7

Publication bias among included studies

Full size image

The Overall quality of the evidence

The certainty of the evidence was assessed using Cochrane risks of bias together with the five GRADE considerations (study limitations, consistency of effect, imprecision, indirectness, and publication bias). The quality of evidence for medication adherence was found to be moderate evidence; which suggests further studies will increase our confidence in the estimate of effect size (Table 2).

Table 2 Summary of findings the effect of mobile phone text message interventions compared to usual care
Full size table

Discussion

We found nine randomized control trials that evaluated the effect of text messaging interventions on medication adherence in participants with T2DM. Studies generally have a low risk of bias regarding random sequence generation and incomplete outcome data. Allocation concealment was described in 2 of the included studies [27, 28], resulting in a low risk of bias due to allocation concealment. Five studies [15, 17, 25, 27, 28] described blinding participants and personnel as having a low risk of bias. Outcome assessors were reported to have a low bias risk in three studies [17, 25, 28]. Most of the studies [16, 17, 25, 27,28,29,30] described a low risk of bias for incomplete outcome data using an intent-to-treat analysis. In the current review, two of the nine included studies [15, 30] demonstrate some concern about the possible risk-of-bias judgments to selective reporting.

Authors found that mobile phone text messaging interventions had a favourable effect on medication adherence in patients with T2DM, with significant improvement in medication adherence by 0.36% when nine studies were pooled together in a meta-analysis. The body of evidence relating to the effect of mobile phone-based interventions on anti-diabetic medication adherence was a moderate level of evidence. Pooled analysis of nine trials showed a paramount benefit for medication adherence for interventions delivered through educational and motivational text messages about T2DM. The studies were conducted in different areas of the globe and provided reasonable confidence in the applicability of results across settings.

Our finding of evidence for the effects of mobile phone text message-delivered interventions to increase adherence to medication prescribed for T2DM is consistent with one meta-analysis determining the effectiveness of short message service intervention to improve glycated hemoglobin control and medication adherence in T2DM [31]. Similarly, this finding is consistent with a systematic review of diabetic self-management education and support apps interventions to improve medication adherence from slight to moderate effects [32]. However, one systematic review examining RCTs of monitoring and messaging interventions targeting medication adherence to managing type 2 diabetes found no evidence of improvements in medication adherence in their pooled meta-analyses of five trials [33].

Our finding showed that pooled analyses of interventions delivered by text messaging indicated moderate benefits with statistical significance. Our findings were consistent with the findings from trials using a short message system alone targeting adherence to cardiovascular disease medication, which also report small benefits of mobile phone text interventions [34]. Medication adherence is essential for maximizing the effectiveness of pharmaceutical therapy [35]. It is known that improved medication adherence may have also influenced glycemic control [36]. Nevertheless, future research must confirm the association between medication adherence and HbA1c levels. The distinct advantages of text messaging over other interventions are simplicity and ease of administration, often in an automated fashion using a computerized program [37].

The finding of the subgroup analysis showed that medication adherence improved significantly after six months of intervention. This implies that we are unable to suggest the effectiveness of mobile phone-based interventions for short-term adherence to medication prescribed for T2DM. Only one study found the longest intervention period for medication adherence out of the studies was 24 months; therefore, it is difficult to predict the effect of longer interventions. Further research is required to shed more light on the long-term effect of mobile phone text message interventions on medication adherence.

This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of mobile phone text messaging in improving medication adherence among T2DM. Future studies would consider the following limitations. First, we have limited papers to those written in English. Second, the authors did not include individuals with type 1 diabetes, gestational diabetes mellitus, or prediabetes. Third, the long-term effects of text messaging on medication adherence could not be examined due to the short duration of the trials included in the analysis. Fourth, in some studies, the level of medication adherence was self-reported; this would raise the possibility of reporter bias. Fifth, it is likely that these interventions would require adaptation for different settings, and it needs to be clarified what behavior change techniques, or combinations of them, are effective. Finally, many confounding factors might influence the patients' adherence that we are not maintaining in this review, such as age, sex, duration of diabetes, educational level, cultural background, and socioeconomic class.

Conclusion

Our meta-analysis pooled results of nine randomized controlled trials demonstrated the favourable impact of mobile phone text messaging on medication adherence in patients with T2DM. Therefore, text messaging, when delivered in addition to usual care, has the potential to produce significant improvements in medication adherence.

Implication for clinical practice

Our review examined the effectiveness of mobile phone text message reminders/intervention and found an excellent positive effect on T2DM medication adherence. These findings can have important implications for everyday practice and policy, particularly during pandemic times or when healthcare resources are stretched, as novel methods of healthcare delivery in remote and contactless ways become increasingly necessary. Mobile phone text message interventions hold promise in improving adherence. However, implementation and long‐term sustainability need to be considered.

Our findings suggest possible effectiveness, but our review did not find any studies that reported affordability/cost‐effectiveness or how interventions may impact equitable access to T2DM treatment and management. However, the evidence demonstrated from previous analyses of mobile-based interventions in other fields showed inexpensive once systems are set up. Furthermore, compared to other digital interventions, mobile phones are widely prevalent in modern society; short text message interventions are likely more affordable and easily accessible to the general population, including remote and rural populations, as mobile phones are ubiquitous across low‐, middle‐, and high‐income countries. In addition, mobile phone text message interventions may reduce access barriers such as lack of transportation, inability to get time off work, medical consultation costs, and finances.

Mobile phone interventions should be considered part of the more comprehensive health service delivery. Future mobile phone‐based interventions should consider the context and needs of the population, for example, literacy, phone use, use of other services, and what behavior change techniques delivered by mobile phones are likely to be effective. For example, it is not given that people deemed illiterate in a classic reading and writing context cannot benefit from text message interventions as they may still be capable of understanding text messages. Hence, policymakers and other concerned bodies should design appropriate implementation guidelines to improve medication adherence using mobile phone text messages as a care package.

Implication for research

More extensive trials with extended follow-up periods using theory-based interventions are required to improve current evidence. In addition, further study is required on the feasibility, cost-effectiveness, and acceptability of mobile phone text message interventions. Finally, future studies need to determine the features of text message interventions that improve success, appropriate patient populations, sustained effects, and influences on clinical outcomes.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information files].

Abbreviations

DM:

Diabetes Mellitus

GRADE:

Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation

RCT:

Randomized control trial

SMD:

Standard Mean difference

T2DM:

Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

References

  1. Fan W. Epidemiology in diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease. Cardiovascular endocrinology. 2017;6(1):8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. World Health organization GroD, Geneva, 2016. Accessed 30 August 2016.

  3. Cho N, Shaw J, Karuranga S, Huang Y, da Rocha FJ, Ohlrogge A, Malanda B. IDF Diabetes Atlas: Global estimates of diabetes prevalence for 2017 and projections for 2045. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2018;138:271–81.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. International diabetes federation. IDF Diabetes Atlas teB, Belgium: International Diabetes Federation. 2015. .

  5. Zheng Y, Ley SH, Hu FB. Global aetiology and epidemiology of type 2 diabetes mellitus and its complications. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2018;14(2):88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Meng X-H, Huang Y-X, Rao D-P, Zhang Q, Liu Q. Comparison of three data mining models for predicting diabetes or prediabetes by risk factors. Kaohsiung J Med Sci. 2013;29(2):93–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Organization WH: Global report on diabetes. 2016.

  8. Mohsen IH, Jawad MA, Kadhim AJ, Al-Terehi MN. The oxidative stress state in diabetes mellitus type 2 patients with different medications types. Journal of Chemical Health Risks. 2022;12(3):523–5.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Alkomos MF, Mendez D, Mazzei-Pifano D, Shafeek F, Rodriguez C, Ali F, Banks C, Melki G, Michael P. Patients’ reasons for missing scheduled clinic appointments and their solutions at a major urban-based academic medical center. Journal of community hospital internal medicine perspectives. 2020;10(5):426–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Meece J. Improving medication adherence among patients with type 2 diabetes. J Pharm Pract. 2014;27(2):187–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kesavadev J, Saboo B, Shankar A, Krishnan G, Jothydev S. Telemedicine for diabetes care: An Indian perspective - feasibility and efficacy. Indian journal of endocrinology and metabolism. 2015;19(6):764–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Leong KC, Chen WS, Leong KW, Mastura I, Mimi O, Sheikh MA, Zailinawati AH, Ng CJ, Phua KL, Teng CL. The use of text messaging to improve attendance in primary care: a randomized controlled trial. Fam Pract. 2006;23(6):699–705.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Wald DS, Bestwick JP, Raiman L, Brendell R, Wald NJ. Randomised trial of text messaging on adherence to cardiovascular preventive treatment (INTERACT trial). PLoS ONE. 2014;9(12): e114268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Gautier J-F, Boitard C, Michiels Y, Raymond G, Vergez G, Guedon G. Impact of personalized text messages from pharmacists on medication adherence in type 2 diabetes in France: A real-world, randomized, comparative study. Patient Educ Couns. 2021;104(9):2250–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Vervloet M, van Dijk L, Santen-Reestman J, Van Vlijmen B, Van Wingerden P, Bouvy ML, de Bakker DH. SMS reminders improve adherence to oral medication in type 2 diabetes patients who are real time electronically monitored. Int J Med Informatics. 2012;81(9):594–604.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Vervloet M, Van Dijk L, De Bakker D, Souverein P, Santen-Reestman J, Van Vlijmen B, van Aarle M, van Der Hoek L, Bouvy M. Short-and long-term effects of real-time medication monitoring with short message service (SMS) reminders for missed doses on the refill adherence of people with Type 2 diabetes: evidence from a randomized controlled trial. Diabet Med. 2014;31(7):821–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Arora S, Peters AL, Burner E, Lam CN, Menchine M: Trial to examine text message–based mHealth in emergency department patients with diabetes (TExT-MED): A randomized controlled trial. Annals of emergency medicine 2014, 63(6):745–754. e746.

  18. Nurul Q: The effect of education through short message service (SMS) messages on diabetic patients adherence. https://www.mdpi.com/journal/scipharm 2020.

  19. Moher DSL, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, Shekelle P, Stewart LA. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1):1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. McGowan JSM, Salzwedel DM, Cogo E, Foerster V, Lefebvre C. PRESS peer review of electronic search strategies: 2015 guideline statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;75:40–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Sterne JA SJ, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, Cates CJ, Cheng H-Y, Corbett MS, Eldridge SM: RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. bmj 2019, 366.

  22. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327(7414):557–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Guyatt G OA, Akl EA, Kunz R, Vist G, Brozek J, Norris S, Falck-Ytter Y, Glasziou P, DeBeer H, Jaeschke R. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction—GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2011 Apr 1;64(4):383–94.

  24. 2015. GGGgdtsMU.

  25. Abaza H, Marschollek M. SMS education for the promotion of diabetes self-management in low & middle income countries: a pilot randomized controlled trial in Egypt. BMC Public Health. 2017;17(1):1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Gautier J-F, Boitard C, Michiels Y, Raymond G, Vergez G, Guedon G: Impact of personalized text messages from pharmacists on medication adherence in type 2 diabetes in France: A real-world, randomized, comparative study. Patient Education and Counseling 2021.

  27. Kleinman NJ, Shah A, Shah S, Phatak S, Viswanathan V. Improved medication adherence and frequency of blood glucose self-testing using an m-Health platform versus usual care in a multisite randomized clinical trial among people with type 2 diabetes in India. Telemedicine and e-Health. 2017;23(9):733–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Owolabi EO, Ter Goon D, Ajayi AI: Impact of mobile phone text messaging intervention on adherence among patients with diabetes in a rural setting: a randomized controlled trial. Medicine 2020, 99(12).

  29. Sugita H, Shinohara R, Yokomichi H, Suzuki K, Yamagata Z. Effect of text messages to improve health literacy on medication adherence in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a randomized controlled pilot trial. Nagoya J Med Sci. 2017;79(3):313.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Adikusuma W, Qiyaam N. The effect of education through short message service (SMS) messages on diabetic patients adherence. Sci Pharm. 2017;85(2):23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Zhuang Q, Chen F, Wang T. Effectiveness of short message service intervention to improve glycated hemoglobin control and medication adherence in type-2 diabetes: A meta-analysis of prospective studies. Prim Care Diabetes. 2020;14(4):356–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Nkhoma DE, Soko CJ, Banda KJ, Greenfield D, Li Y-CJ, Iqbal U: Impact of DSMES app interventions on medication adherence in type 2 diabetes mellitus: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ health & care informatics 2021, 28(1).

  33. Farmer A, McSharry J, Rowbotham S, McGowan L, Ricci-Cabello I, French D. Effects of interventions promoting monitoring of medication use and brief messaging on medication adherence for people with Type 2 diabetes: a systematic review of randomized trials. Diabet Med. 2016;33(5):565–79.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Palmer MJ, Machiyama K, Woodd S, Gubijev A, Barnard S, Russell S, Perel P, Free C: Mobile phone‐based interventions for improving adherence to medication prescribed for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2021(3).

  35. Lin LKSY, Heng BH, Chew DE, Chong PN. Medication adherence and glycemic control among newly diagnosed diabetes patients. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 2017;5(1): e000429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Osei-Yeboah J, Lokpo SY, Owiredu WK, Johnson BB, Orish VN, Botchway F, Ussher FA, Avorkliyah R: Medication Adherence and its Association with Glycaemic Control, Blood Pressure Control, Glycosuria and Proteinuria Among People Living With Diabetes (PLWD) in the Ho Municipality, Ghana. The Open Public Health Journal 2018, 11(1).

  37. Thakkar J, Kurup R, Laba T-L, Santo K, Thiagalingam A, Rodgers A, Woodward M, Redfern J, Chow CK. Mobile Telephone Text Messaging for Medication Adherence in Chronic Disease: A Meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(3):340–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable

Funding

No funding was received for this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biomedical Science, Debre Berhan University, P. O. Box 454, Debre Berhan, Ethiopia

    Abebe Muche Belete

  2. Department of Nursing, Debre Berhan University, Debre Berhan, Ethiopia

    Belete Negese Gemeda, Yared Asmare Aynalem & Wondimeneh Shibabaw Shiferaw

  3. Department of Nursing, Debre Markos University, Debre Markos, Ethiopia

    Tadesse Yirga Akalu

Authors
  1. Abebe Muche Belete
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Belete Negese Gemeda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tadesse Yirga Akalu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yared Asmare Aynalem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Wondimeneh Shibabaw Shiferaw
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

AM and BN independently screened titles and abstracts and assessed the full texts of all identified articles for eligibility. AM and BN independently extracted data from the included articles. WS and TY verified the extracted data. WS, YA, and TY independently assessed the risk bias of the included articles. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Abebe Muche Belete.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Belete, A.M., Gemeda, B.N., Akalu, T.Y. et al. What is the effect of mobile phone text message reminders on medication adherence among adult type 2 diabetes mellitus patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. BMC Endocr Disord 23, 18 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12902-023-01268-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12902-023-01268-8

Keywords

BMC Endocrine Disorders

ISSN: 1472-6823

Contact us