STUDY OBJECTIVE: We determine the validity of self-reported prescription filling among emergency department (ED) patients. METHODS: We analyzed a subgroup of 1,026 patients enrolled in a randomized controlled trial who were prescribed at least 1 medication at ED discharge, were covered by Medicaid insurance, and completed a telephone interview 1 week after the index ED visit. We extracted all pharmacy and health care use claims information from a state Medicaid database for all subjects within 30 days of their index ED visit. We used the pharmacy claims as the criterion standard and evaluated the accuracy of self-reported prescription filling obtained during the follow-up interview by estimating its sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio and negative likelihood ratio tests. We also examined whether the accuracy of self-reported prescription filling varied significantly by patient and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: Of the 1,635 medications prescribed, 74% were filled according to the pharmacy claims. Subjects reported filling 90% of prescriptions for a difference of 16% (95% confidence interval [CI] 14% to 18%). The self-reported data had high sensitivity (0.96; 95% CI 0.95 to 0.97) but low specificity (0.30; 95% CI 0.26 to 0.34). The positive likelihood ratio (1.37; 95% CI 1.29 to 2.46) and negative likelihood ratio (0.13; 95% CI 0.09 to 0.17) tests indicate that self-reported data are not a good indicator of prescription filling but are a moderately good indicator of nonfulfillment. Several factors were significantly associated with lower sensitivity (drug class and over-the-counter medications) and specificity (drug class, as needed, site and previous ED use). CONCLUSION: Self-reported prescription filling is overestimated and associated with few factors.
RCT Entities:
STUDY OBJECTIVE: We determine the validity of self-reported prescription filling among emergency department (ED) patients. METHODS: We analyzed a subgroup of 1,026 patients enrolled in a randomized controlled trial who were prescribed at least 1 medication at ED discharge, were covered by Medicaid insurance, and completed a telephone interview 1 week after the index ED visit. We extracted all pharmacy and health care use claims information from a state Medicaid database for all subjects within 30 days of their index ED visit. We used the pharmacy claims as the criterion standard and evaluated the accuracy of self-reported prescription filling obtained during the follow-up interview by estimating its sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio and negative likelihood ratio tests. We also examined whether the accuracy of self-reported prescription filling varied significantly by patient and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: Of the 1,635 medications prescribed, 74% were filled according to the pharmacy claims. Subjects reported filling 90% of prescriptions for a difference of 16% (95% confidence interval [CI] 14% to 18%). The self-reported data had high sensitivity (0.96; 95% CI 0.95 to 0.97) but low specificity (0.30; 95% CI 0.26 to 0.34). The positive likelihood ratio (1.37; 95% CI 1.29 to 2.46) and negative likelihood ratio (0.13; 95% CI 0.09 to 0.17) tests indicate that self-reported data are not a good indicator of prescription filling but are a moderately good indicator of nonfulfillment. Several factors were significantly associated with lower sensitivity (drug class and over-the-counter medications) and specificity (drug class, as needed, site and previous ED use). CONCLUSION: Self-reported prescription filling is overestimated and associated with few factors.
Authors: Shannon L Toohey; Jessica Andrusaitis; Megan Boysen-Osborn; John Billimek; Maxwell Jen; Scott Rudkin Journal: Am J Emerg Med Date: 2018-02-05 Impact factor: 2.469
Authors: Jennifer J Bowdoin; Rosa Rodriguez-Monguio; Elaine Puleo; David Keller; Joan Roche Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2016-08-24 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Ivy Benjenk; Eva H DuGoff; Gwen C Jacobsohn; Nia Cayenne; Courtney M C Jones; Thomas V Caprio; Jeremy T Cushman; Rebecca K Green; Amy J H Kind; Michael Lohmeier; Ranran Mi; Manish N Shah Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2020-09-07 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Christel E van Dijk; Judith D de Jong; Robert A Verheij; Tessa Jansen; Joke C Korevaar; Dinny H de Bakker Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2016-02-01 Impact factor: 2.497