Hillary R Bogner1, Heather F de Vries, Alison J O'Donnell, Knashawn H Morales. 1. Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Perelman School of Medicine, The University of Pennsylvania, 9 Blockley Hall, 423 Guardian Dr, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA. hillary.bogner@uphs.upenn.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Many patients experience difficulty in adhering to medication for both physical and mental health. Our objective was to compare selfreported adherence and electronic monitoring of adherence to oral hypoglycemic agents and antidepressants and to examine the relationship of adherence with clinical outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: Primary care-based longitudinal study. METHODS: Adherence was assessed in 180 patients prescribed pharmacotherapy for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and depression enrolled in a randomized controlled trial of an integrated intervention for depression and T2DM. Adherence data were collected using self report and electronic monitoring. Glycated hemoglobin (A1C) assays were used to measure glycemic control, and the 9-item patient health questionnaire assessed depression. RESULTS: At 12 weeks, self-reported adherence and electronic monitoring of adherence showed fair agreement (kappa = 0.213, P = .004 for oral hypoglycemic agents and kappa = 0.380, P < .001 for antidepressants). Patients who achieved >80% adherence to oral hypoglycemic agents measured with electronic monitoring were more likely to achieve A1C < 7% compared with patients who did not achieve > 80% adherence at 12 weeks (adjusted odds ratio = 3.52, 95% confidence interval 1.07-11.57). Self-reported adherence to oral hypoglycemic agents was not associated with diabetes outcomes. Measures of adherence for antidepressants were not associated with depression outcomes in models adjusted for potentially influential covariates. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with electronic monitoring of adherence, self-reported adherence tended to overestimate medication adherence. Electronic monitoring of adherence to oral hypoglycemic agents predicted glycemic control, but self-reported adherence did not predict clinical outcomes.
OBJECTIVES: Many patients experience difficulty in adhering to medication for both physical and mental health. Our objective was to compare selfreported adherence and electronic monitoring of adherence to oral hypoglycemic agents and antidepressants and to examine the relationship of adherence with clinical outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: Primary care-based longitudinal study. METHODS: Adherence was assessed in 180 patients prescribed pharmacotherapy for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and depression enrolled in a randomized controlled trial of an integrated intervention for depression and T2DM. Adherence data were collected using self report and electronic monitoring. Glycated hemoglobin (A1C) assays were used to measure glycemic control, and the 9-item patient health questionnaire assessed depression. RESULTS: At 12 weeks, self-reported adherence and electronic monitoring of adherence showed fair agreement (kappa = 0.213, P = .004 for oral hypoglycemic agents and kappa = 0.380, P < .001 for antidepressants). Patients who achieved >80% adherence to oral hypoglycemic agents measured with electronic monitoring were more likely to achieve A1C < 7% compared with patients who did not achieve > 80% adherence at 12 weeks (adjusted odds ratio = 3.52, 95% confidence interval 1.07-11.57). Self-reported adherence to oral hypoglycemic agents was not associated with diabetes outcomes. Measures of adherence for antidepressants were not associated with depression outcomes in models adjusted for potentially influential covariates. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with electronic monitoring of adherence, self-reported adherence tended to overestimate medication adherence. Electronic monitoring of adherence to oral hypoglycemic agents predicted glycemic control, but self-reported adherence did not predict clinical outcomes.
Authors: Corrado Barbui; Andrea Cipriani; Vikram Patel; José L Ayuso-Mateos; Mark van Ommeren Journal: Br J Psychiatry Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 9.319
Authors: Saman K Hashmi; Maria B Afridi; Kanza Abbas; Rubina A Sajwani; Danish Saleheen; Philippe M Frossard; Mohammad Ishaq; Aisha Ambreen; Usman Ahmad Journal: PLoS One Date: 2007-03-14 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Jeffrey S Gonzalez; Mark Peyrot; Lauren A McCarl; Erin Marie Collins; Luis Serpa; Matthew J Mimiaga; Steven A Safren Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 17.152
Authors: Liset van Dijk; Eibert R Heerdink; Dinesh Somai; Sandra van Dulmen; Emmy M Sluijs; Denise T de Ridder; Anna M G F Griens; Jozien M Bensing Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2007-04-10 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Heather F de Vries McClintock; Douglas J Wiebe; Alison J OʼDonnell; Knashawn H Morales; Dylan S Small; Hillary R Bogner Journal: Fam Community Health Date: 2015 Apr-Jun
Authors: Louise Foley; James Larkin; Richard Lombard-Vance; Andrew W Murphy; Lisa Hynes; Emer Galvin; Gerard J Molloy Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-09-02 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: M Sue Kirkman; Megan T Rowan-Martin; Rebecca Levin; Vivian A Fonseca; Julie A Schmittdiel; William H Herman; Ronald E Aubert Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2015-01-08 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Jennifer B Levin; David J Moore; Colin Depp; Jessica L Montoya; Farren Briggs; Mahboob Rahman; Kurt C Stange; Douglas Einstadter; Celeste Weise; Carla Conroy; Joy Yala; Ethan Radatz; Martha Sajatovic Journal: Trials Date: 2022-06-29 Impact factor: 2.728