Wang, H., Naghavi, M., Allen, C., Barber, R. M., Bhutta, Z.A., Carter, A., Casey, D.C., Charlson, F.J., Chen, A.Z., Coates, M.M., Coggeshall, M., Dandona, L., Dicker, D.J., Erskine, H.E., Ferrari, A.J., Fitzmaurice, C., Foreman, K., Forouzanfar, M.H., Fraser, M.S., Murray, C.J.L., et al. (2016) Global, Regional, and National Life Expectancy, All-Cause Mortality, and Cause-Specific Mortality for 249 Causes of Death, 1980-2015: A Systematic Analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015. The Lancet, 388, 1459-1544. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31012-1

has been cited by the following article:

• TITLE: Effectiveness of Short Message Service Support on Adherence to Chemotherapy Treatment among Patients Attending Cancer Treatment Facilities in Kenya

  AUTHORS: Nebert Kiguhe Mchidi, John P. Oyore, Gordon Ogweno

  KEYWORDS: Adherence, Cancer, Symptom Distress, Quality of Life, Medication Posses-sion Ratio, Short Message Service, Survivorship

  JOURNAL NAME: Open Journal of Nursing, Vol.14 No.3, March 29, 2024

  ABSTRACT: Introduction: Cancer is a chronic debilitating disease that unnerves patients, communities, and nations. At some point in cancer patient’s disease experience, chemotherapy is used, and the patient is expected to adhere to treatment to improve survival and quality of life. Methods: This multisite Cluster Randomized Trial (CRT) evaluated the effectiveness of mobile phone Short Message Service (SMS) support on the adherence to treatment schedules among adult cancer patients in Kenya. Data was collected using questionnaires. Ethical approvals were obtained from relevant Ethical Review Boards (ERBs). Results: The mean adherence was 83%. There was a significant difference between treatment arms in relation to the adherence. The intervention arm had a higher mean adherence difference, M = 3.913, 95% CI 2.632-5.193, t (402) = 6.006, p ≤ 0.001), with Cohen’s d = 0.60. Although not significant, (χ2dd = 0.151, df = 1, p = 2.064), more women were perfect adheres than males. Perfect adherers were satisfied with SMS support (χ2dd = 7.620, df = 1, p = 0.06), were in the intervention arm (χ2dd = 22.942, df = 1, p ≤ 0.001), and had trust in the care provider (χ2dd = 10.591 p ≤ 0.001). SMS support was not significant in the multivariate analysis but had an estimated effect size of 0.958 (z = 1.424, p = 0.154, CI = 0.242-3.781), indicating that mean adherence was slightly better in the presence of the intervention. Conclusions: SMS-support intervention has demonstrated superiority in influencing adherence. Further, health system-related factors have a significant influence on the adherence to chemotherapy treatment. Interventions to re-design health systems that are responsive to unmet care needs of cancer patients must be explored.