Last updated July 11, 2026
Key finding
Primary outcome is medication adherence measured using eCAP electronic monitoring and self-report.
This study evaluated the effectiveness of two behavioral interventions aimed at improving medication adherence in adults with Type 2 diabetes.
Quick read
The essential study design details in one scan.
EvidenceScore™
Moderate
Study type
RCTs
Follow-up
Long-Term (1–5 y)
Risk of bias
Some Concerns
Save research, organize studies, and quickly find important evidence again.
Plain-language summary
A plain-language read of the study’s main message and where it applies.
Study focus
This study evaluated the effectiveness of two behavioral interventions aimed at improving medication adherence in adults with Type 2 diabetes.
Improving medication adherence is crucial for managing Type 2 diabetes effectively, as it can lead to better health outcomes and reduced risk of complications. Understanding the effectiveness of different interventions can help healthcare providers choose the best strategies for their patients.
Unclear effectiveness findings limit the ability to draw strong conclusions. Study design may affect generalizability to broader populations. Limited sample size may impact the reliability of the results.
Published in
Publication details and source links for this paper.
Adesuwa O, Karen K, William H, et al. Improving Medication Adherence in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes: A Pragmatic Cluster-Randomized Trial. Trials. 2022;23:659. doi:10.1186/s13063-022-06581-6
Unclear effectiveness on medication adherence using eCAP electronic monitoring and self-report.
Unclear effectiveness on diabetes-specific 5-year CVD risk measured with the UKPDS Engine score.
Unclear effectiveness on provider engagement as measured by the CollaboRATE Shared-Decision Making measure.
Unclear effectiveness on patient activation measures (PAM).
Evidence network
Understand where this research contributes within the broader evidence network.
This study contributes evidence to Office-Gap + Texting and Diabetes-specific 5-year CVD risk as measured with the UKPDS Engine score, Patient Activation, Patient engagement, and 1 more.
This study contributes evidence to
Primary intervention
Office-Gap + Texting
Primary outcomes
Evidence topics
Primary intervention
Intervention and outcome relationships this study adds to the evidence network.
Editorial context
See why this paper is useful beyond its individual results.
Evidence network role
This section describes how the study fits into the current evidence network. It does not determine whether an intervention works on its own.
1
Related topics
4
Evidence pairs
70
Related studies
Evidence topic
Contributes evidence
Save studies and evidence pages, organize your personal Evidence Tracker, and keep the research you care about in one place.
Primary evidence
Evidence topic
matched_outcome
Core evidence
The primary outcomes reported in this study.
Office-Gap + Texting → Diabetes-specific 5-year CVD risk as measured with the UKPDS Engine score
Office-Gap + Texting → Diabetes-specific 5-year CVD risk as measured with the UKPDS Engine score
Office-Gap + Texting → Patient Activation
Office-Gap + Texting → Patient Activation
Office-Gap + Texting → Patient engagement
Office-Gap + Texting → Patient engagement
Office-Gap + Texting → Proportion of participants with good medication adherence
Office-Gap + Texting → Proportion of participants with good medication adherence
Evidence Library
Save research, organize studies, and quickly find important evidence again.
Evidence Library
Save research, organize studies, and quickly find important evidence again.
Explore related studies, evidence collections, and research questions.
Relationships organized using the Dediabetes Evidence Intelligence™ framework.
This study contributes to evidence on Office-Gap + Texting and Diabetes-specific 5-year CVD risk as measured with the UKPDS Engine score, Office-Gap + Texting and Patient Activation.
This study contributes to the evidence on the following intervention-outcome relationships.
Behavioral & Lifestyle
Behavioral & Lifestyle
Curated evidence collections and hubs this study is part of.
All studies measuring Diabetes-specific 5-year CVD risk as measured with the UKPDS Engine score
Measures Diabetes-specific 5-year CVD risk as measured with the UKPDS Engine score as a key outcome.
All studies on Office-Gap + Texting
Contributes to Office-Gap + Texting evidence base.
All studies measuring Patient Activation
Measures Patient Activation as a key outcome.
Jump to pre-filtered views in Evidence Explorer.
1 results
1 results
1 results
1 results
1 results
Generated from the study's connected evidence using Evidence Intelligence™.
Office-Gap + Texting appears to improve Proportion of participants with good medication adherence.
ConsistencyScore™: Consistency cannot yet be determined from the available evidence.
Ranked evidence signals
Proportion of participants with good medication adherence
EvidenceScore™ Emerging | EvidenceScore™ 59.0 | strong positive | ConsistencyScore™ Unclear | 1 study
Why this answer: This answer is based on a single supporting study.
Limitations
Current evidence does not show a clear benefit of Office-Gap + Texting for Diabetes-specific 5-year CVD risk as measured with the UKPDS Engine score.
ConsistencyScore™: Consistency cannot yet be determined from the available evidence.
Ranked evidence signals
Diabetes-specific 5-year CVD risk as measured with the UKPDS Engine score
EvidenceScore™ Emerging | EvidenceScore™ 59.0 | neutral | ConsistencyScore™ Unclear | 1 study
Why this answer: This answer is based on a single supporting study.
Limitations
Current evidence does not show a clear benefit of Office-Gap + Texting for Patient Activation.
ConsistencyScore™: Consistency cannot yet be determined from the available evidence.
Ranked evidence signals
Patient Activation
EvidenceScore™ Emerging | EvidenceScore™ 59.0 | neutral | ConsistencyScore™ Unclear | 1 study
Why this answer: This answer is based on a single supporting study.
Limitations
Current evidence does not show a clear benefit of Office-Gap + Texting for Patient engagement.
ConsistencyScore™: Consistency cannot yet be determined from the available evidence.
Ranked evidence signals
Patient engagement
EvidenceScore™ Emerging | EvidenceScore™ 59.0 | neutral | ConsistencyScore™ Unclear | 1 study
Why this answer: This answer is based on a single supporting study.
Limitations
Next steps
Choose a next path through related evidence topics, Evidence Explorer views, and research summaries.
Open broader Evidence Explorer views for this relationship.
Read related research summaries.
Focused on evidence, not advertising.
Your data is always protected.
New studies added every day.
