OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the concordance of self-report measures of medication adherence (interview, diary, or questionnaire) with nonself-report measures of adherence (administrative claims, pill count or canister weight, plasma drug concentration, electronic monitors, or clinical opinion). METHODS: A literature search was conducted to identify published reports in which self-report and nonself-report measures of adherence were used within the same study. The concordance of measures within each study was categorized as high, moderate, or low based on a comparison of the adherence estimates. RESULTS: Eight-six comparisons of self-report to nonself-report measures of adherence were identified. Thirty-seven of the 86 comparisons (43%) were categorized as highly concordant. However, concordance varied substantially by type of self-report measure and nonself-report measure. Self-report measures, in general, were highly concordant with electronic measures in only 17% of comparisons, whereas they were highly concordant with other types of nonself-report measures in 58% of comparisons (chi-square = 14.30, P <0.01). When comparing self-report measures, interviews had significantly lower concordance with nonself-report measures as compared with questionnaires or diaries (chi-square = 8.47, P = 0.01). In 15 comparisons of interviews with electronic measures, none of the comparisons were highly concordant, whereas questionnaires and diaries had moderate-to-high concordance with electronic measures in 12 of 16 comparisons (75%). CONCLUSIONS: The concordance of self-report and other measures of medication adherence varies widely based on the type of measures used. Questionnaires and diaries tend to have moderate-to-high concordance with other measures of medication adherence. However, interview-based self-reports are not concordant with electronic measures. Questionnaire and diary methods could be preferable to interviews for self-reported medication adherence.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the concordance of self-report measures of medication adherence (interview, diary, or questionnaire) with nonself-report measures of adherence (administrative claims, pill count or canister weight, plasma drug concentration, electronic monitors, or clinical opinion). METHODS: A literature search was conducted to identify published reports in which self-report and nonself-report measures of adherence were used within the same study. The concordance of measures within each study was categorized as high, moderate, or low based on a comparison of the adherence estimates. RESULTS: Eight-six comparisons of self-report to nonself-report measures of adherence were identified. Thirty-seven of the 86 comparisons (43%) were categorized as highly concordant. However, concordance varied substantially by type of self-report measure and nonself-report measure. Self-report measures, in general, were highly concordant with electronic measures in only 17% of comparisons, whereas they were highly concordant with other types of nonself-report measures in 58% of comparisons (chi-square = 14.30, P <0.01). When comparing self-report measures, interviews had significantly lower concordance with nonself-report measures as compared with questionnaires or diaries (chi-square = 8.47, P = 0.01). In 15 comparisons of interviews with electronic measures, none of the comparisons were highly concordant, whereas questionnaires and diaries had moderate-to-high concordance with electronic measures in 12 of 16 comparisons (75%). CONCLUSIONS: The concordance of self-report and other measures of medication adherence varies widely based on the type of measures used. Questionnaires and diaries tend to have moderate-to-high concordance with other measures of medication adherence. However, interview-based self-reports are not concordant with electronic measures. Questionnaire and diary methods could be preferable to interviews for self-reported medication adherence.
Authors: Julie McFarland; Amy L Salisbury; Cynthia L Battle; Katheleen Hawes; Katherine Halloran; Barry M Lester Journal: Arch Womens Ment Health Date: 2011-09-22 Impact factor: 3.633
Authors: Hiwot Woldu; Giovanna Porta; Tina Goldstein; Dara Sakolsky; James Perel; Graham Emslie; Taryn Mayes; Greg Clarke; Neal D Ryan; Boris Birmaher; Karen Dineen Wagner; Joan Rosenbaum Asarnow; Martin B Keller; David Brent Journal: J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry Date: 2011-03-09 Impact factor: 8.829
Authors: D Lamunu; K N Chapman; P Nsubuga; G Muzanyi; Y Mulumba; M A Mugerwa; S Goldberg; L Bozeman; M Engle; J Saukkonen; S Mastranunzio; H Mayanja-Kizza; J L Johnson Journal: Int J Tuberc Lung Dis Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 2.373
Authors: Barbara Guerard; Vincent Omachonu; Raymond A Harvey; S Robert Hernandez; Bisakha Sen Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2015-09-15 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Dharam J Kumbhani; Ph Gabriel Steg; Christopher P Cannon; Kim A Eagle; Sidney C Smith; Shinya Goto; E Magnus Ohman; Yedid Elbez; Piyamitr Sritara; Iris Baumgartner; Subhash Banerjee; Mark A Creager; Deepak L Bhatt Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2014-02-28 Impact factor: 29.983