Andreas Zeller1, Knut Schroeder, Tim J Peters. 1. Academic Unit of Primary Health Care, Department of Community Based Medicine, University of Bristol, Cotham House, Cotham Hill, BS6 6JL Bristol, United Kingdom. zellera@uhbs.ch
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate, among hypertensive patients, a brief adherence self-report questionnaire (ASRQ), using electronic monitors (medical event monitoring system, MEMS) as the gold standard comparator. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A total of 239 patients with hypertension in five general practices in Bristol, UK completed the ASRQ before and at the end of the 4-week study period. Patients were asked to choose one of six descriptions (from level 1=perfect adherence to level 6=nonadherence) to express their medication taking. The main outcome measure was "timing adherence" (correct interdose intervals) as measured through electronic monitors. RESULTS: Most patients (89%) stated perfect or nearly perfect adherence, and data from the electronic monitors showed a mean timing adherence of 88.3% (n=216). Using the cutoff of those who reported ASRQ levels 1 and 2 (all tablets taken but not always at the same time of day), a high percentage of those with comparatively high adherence according to MEMS were correctly identified (specificity, 90-93%; negative predictive value, 66-96%). However, sensitivity (detection of true nonadherers) and positive predictive value were poor to moderate (14-42% and 22-66%, respectively). CONCLUSION: The questionnaire could be a useful aid to facilitate the difficult differentiation between nonadherence and nonresponse to prescribed antihypertensive medication.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate, among hypertensivepatients, a brief adherence self-report questionnaire (ASRQ), using electronic monitors (medical event monitoring system, MEMS) as the gold standard comparator. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A total of 239 patients with hypertension in five general practices in Bristol, UK completed the ASRQ before and at the end of the 4-week study period. Patients were asked to choose one of six descriptions (from level 1=perfect adherence to level 6=nonadherence) to express their medication taking. The main outcome measure was "timing adherence" (correct interdose intervals) as measured through electronic monitors. RESULTS: Most patients (89%) stated perfect or nearly perfect adherence, and data from the electronic monitors showed a mean timing adherence of 88.3% (n=216). Using the cutoff of those who reported ASRQ levels 1 and 2 (all tablets taken but not always at the same time of day), a high percentage of those with comparatively high adherence according to MEMS were correctly identified (specificity, 90-93%; negative predictive value, 66-96%). However, sensitivity (detection of true nonadherers) and positive predictive value were poor to moderate (14-42% and 22-66%, respectively). CONCLUSION: The questionnaire could be a useful aid to facilitate the difficult differentiation between nonadherence and nonresponse to prescribed antihypertensive medication.
Authors: Michael J Stirratt; Jacqueline Dunbar-Jacob; Heidi M Crane; Jane M Simoni; Susan Czajkowski; Marisa E Hilliard; James E Aikens; Christine M Hunter; Dawn I Velligan; Kristen Huntley; Gbenga Ogedegbe; Cynthia S Rand; Eleanor Schron; Wendy J Nilsen Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2015-07-09 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Wendy Landier; Yanjun Chen; Lindsey Hageman; Heeyoung Kim; Bruce C Bostrom; Jacqueline N Casillas; David S Dickens; William E Evans; Kelly W Maloney; Leo Mascarenhas; A Kim Ritchey; Amanda M Termuhlen; William L Carroll; Mary V Relling; F Lennie Wong; Smita Bhatia Journal: Blood Date: 2017-02-02 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Rosa L de Jager; Erik M van Maarseveen; Michiel L Bots; Peter J Blankestijn Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2017-10-10 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Suzanne Domel Baxter; James W Hardin; Albert F Smith; Julie A Royer; Caroline H Guinn; Alyssa J Mackelprang Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2009-02-20 Impact factor: 6.437