Avani C Modi1, Shanna M Guilfoyle, Diego A Morita, Tracy A Glauser. 1. Division of Behavioral Medicine and Clinical Psychology, Center for the Promotion of Adherence and Self-Management, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio 45229, USA. avani.modi@cchmc.org
Abstract
PURPOSE: Study aims were (1) to document and examine associations between parent-report and electronic monitoring (EM) of pediatric antiepileptic drug (AED) adherence, (2) to determine the sensitivity and specificity of parent-reported adherence, and (3) to develop a correction factor for parent-reported adherence. METHODS: Participants included 111 consecutive children with new-onset epilepsy (M(age) = 7.2 ± 2.0; 61.3% male; 75.8% Caucasian) and their primary caregivers. AED adherence was electronically monitored for 3 months prior to the 4-month clinic follow-up visit. Parent-reported adherence captured adherence 1-week prior to the clinic visit. For specificity/sensitivity analyses of parent-reported adherence, cut points of 50%, 80%, and 90% were used with electronically monitored adherence calculated 1-week prior to the clinic visit as the reference criterion. KEY FINDINGS: Electronically monitored adherence (80.3%) was significantly lower than parent-reported adherence (96.5%; p < 0.0001) 1-week prior to the clinic visit, but both were significantly correlated (rho = 0.46, p < 0.001). The 90% parent-reported adherence cut point demonstrated the most sensitivity and specificity to electronically monitored adherence; however, specificity was still only 28%. A correction factor of 0.83 was identified as a reliable adjustment for parent-reported adherence when compared to electronically monitored adherence. SIGNIFICANCE: Although EM is the gold standard of adherence measurement for pediatric epilepsy, it is often not clinically feasible to integrate it into routine clinical care. Therefore, use of a correction factor for interpreting parent-reported adherence holds promise as a reliable clinical tool. With reliable adherence measurement, clinicians can provide adherence interventions with the hope of optimizing health outcomes for children with epilepsy. Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
PURPOSE: Study aims were (1) to document and examine associations between parent-report and electronic monitoring (EM) of pediatric antiepileptic drug (AED) adherence, (2) to determine the sensitivity and specificity of parent-reported adherence, and (3) to develop a correction factor for parent-reported adherence. METHODS:Participants included 111 consecutive children with new-onset epilepsy (M(age) = 7.2 ± 2.0; 61.3% male; 75.8% Caucasian) and their primary caregivers. AED adherence was electronically monitored for 3 months prior to the 4-month clinic follow-up visit. Parent-reported adherence captured adherence 1-week prior to the clinic visit. For specificity/sensitivity analyses of parent-reported adherence, cut points of 50%, 80%, and 90% were used with electronically monitored adherence calculated 1-week prior to the clinic visit as the reference criterion. KEY FINDINGS: Electronically monitored adherence (80.3%) was significantly lower than parent-reported adherence (96.5%; p < 0.0001) 1-week prior to the clinic visit, but both were significantly correlated (rho = 0.46, p < 0.001). The 90% parent-reported adherence cut point demonstrated the most sensitivity and specificity to electronically monitored adherence; however, specificity was still only 28%. A correction factor of 0.83 was identified as a reliable adjustment for parent-reported adherence when compared to electronically monitored adherence. SIGNIFICANCE: Although EM is the gold standard of adherence measurement for pediatric epilepsy, it is often not clinically feasible to integrate it into routine clinical care. Therefore, use of a correction factor for interpreting parent-reported adherence holds promise as a reliable clinical tool. With reliable adherence measurement, clinicians can provide adherence interventions with the hope of optimizing health outcomes for children with epilepsy. Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Authors: Richard A Hansen; Mimi M Kim; Liping Song; Wanzhu Tu; Jingwei Wu; Michael D Murray Journal: Ann Pharmacother Date: 2009-03-03 Impact factor: 3.154
Authors: Ashley M Kroon Van Diest; Rachelle Ramsey; Brandon Aylward; John W Kroner; Stephanie M Sullivan; Katie Nause; Janelle R Allen; Leigh A Chamberlin; Shalonda Slater; Kevin Hommel; Susan L LeCates; Marielle A Kabbouche; Hope L O'Brien; Joanne Kacperski; Andrew D Hershey; Scott W Powers Journal: Headache Date: 2016-05-11 Impact factor: 5.887
Authors: Timothy D Nelson; Alyssa Lundahl; Dennis L Molfese; Rachel N Waford; Adrienne Roman; David Gozal; Victoria J Molfese; Melissa C Ferguson Journal: J Pediatr Psychol Date: 2014-04-28
Authors: Jamie L Ryan; Meghan E McGrady; Shanna M Guilfoyle; Katherine Junger; Alex D Arnett; Avani C Modi Journal: Neurology Date: 2015-07-10 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Ashley M Kroon Van Diest; Rachelle R Ramsey; Susmita Kashikar-Zuck; Shalonda Slater; Kevin Hommel; John W Kroner; Susan LeCates; Marielle A Kabbouche; Hope L O'Brien; Joanne Kacperski; Janelle R Allen; James Peugh; Andrew D Hershey; Scott W Powers Journal: Clin J Pain Date: 2017-10 Impact factor: 3.442
Authors: Christine Holmberg; Hanna Bandos; Angela Fagerlin; Therese B Bevers; Tracy A Battaglia; D Lawrence Wickerham; Worta J McCaskill-Stevens Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2017-10-04