Table 1

Number of experts1 agreeing with each meta-review proposition and the priority scores assigned by 18 of the 20 participating experts listed from high to low

Meta-review propositions

Agree N

Partly agree N

Disagree N

Priority score2 Mean (sd)


1

Focus on simple interventions workable and feasible in (busy) clinical practice

12

5

0

2.7 (1.2)

2

Progress in adherence theories is to be expected from conjoint efforts of medical, pharmaceutical, social and technical scientists

11

5

1

3.29 (1.8)

3

Patient groups should (help to) develop adherence interventions

16

0

0

3.35 (1.5)

4

Adherence interventions should be limited solely to non-adherent patients

2

6

10

3.35 (1.9)

5

Current adherence theories are more successful in explaining than in improving adherence: theory development should focus on improving adherence

5

4

8

3.65 (1.8)

6

To improve adherence, changing the situation is more promising than changing the patient

4

12

2

4.5 (1.5)


1 Not every expert reacted to every proposition

2 Range 1 – 6; 1 indicating highest priority, 6 lowest priority

van Dulmen et al. BMC Health Services Research 2008 8:47   doi:10.1186/1472-6963-8-47

Open Data