Paula Anne Newman-Casey1, Alan L Robin2, Taylor Blachley3, Karen Farris4, Michele Heisler5, Ken Resnicow6, Paul P Lee3. 1. Department of Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Electronic address: panewman@med.umich.edu. 2. Department of Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Department of Ophthalmology & International Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. 3. Department of Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 4. School of Pharmacy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 5. School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 6. School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the frequency of 11 commonly cited barriers to optimal glaucoma medication adherence among glaucoma patients and to identify barriers contributing to poor adherence. DESIGN: Prospective, cross-sectional survey. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred ninety adults with glaucoma taking 1 or more glaucoma medication who received care in glaucoma clinics in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and Baltimore, Maryland. METHODS: Participants completed a survey on demographic and disease characteristics, barriers to optimal glaucoma medication adherence, interest in an eye drop aid, and self-reported adherence (measured by the Morisky Adherence Scale). Descriptive statistics and logistic regression analyses were performed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Frequency and number of barriers to adherence among both adherent and nonadherent patients. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) identifying barriers associated with poor adherence. RESULTS: Twenty-seven percent of the sample reported poor adherence. Sixty-one percent of all participants cited multiple barriers and 10% cited a single barrier as impediments to optimal adherence. Twenty-nine percent of subjects cited no barriers, although only 13% of patients who cited no barriers were nonadherent. Among nonadherent patients, 31% or more cited each of the 11 barriers as important. Logistic regression analysis, adjusted for age, revealed that the following barriers were associated with higher odds of nonadherence: decreased self-efficacy (OR, 4.7; 95% CI, 2.2-9.7; P ≤ 0.0001), difficulty instilling drops (OR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.1-4.9; P = 0.03), forgetfulness (OR, 5.6; 95% CI, 2.6-12.1; P ≤ 0.0001), and difficulties with the medication schedule (OR, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.4-6.0; P = 0.006). For each additional barrier cited as important, there was a 10% increased odds of being nonadherent (OR, 1.1; 95% CI, 1.0-1.2; P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Each of the 11 barriers was important to at least 30% of surveyed patients with poor adherence, with most identifying multiple barriers to adherence. Low self-efficacy, forgetfulness, and difficulty with drop administration and the medication schedule were barriers associated with poor adherence. Interventions to improve medication adherence must address each patient's unique set of barriers.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the frequency of 11 commonly cited barriers to optimal glaucoma medication adherence among glaucomapatients and to identify barriers contributing to poor adherence. DESIGN: Prospective, cross-sectional survey. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred ninety adults with glaucoma taking 1 or more glaucoma medication who received care in glaucoma clinics in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and Baltimore, Maryland. METHODS:Participants completed a survey on demographic and disease characteristics, barriers to optimal glaucoma medication adherence, interest in an eye drop aid, and self-reported adherence (measured by the Morisky Adherence Scale). Descriptive statistics and logistic regression analyses were performed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Frequency and number of barriers to adherence among both adherent and nonadherent patients. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) identifying barriers associated with poor adherence. RESULTS: Twenty-seven percent of the sample reported poor adherence. Sixty-one percent of all participants cited multiple barriers and 10% cited a single barrier as impediments to optimal adherence. Twenty-nine percent of subjects cited no barriers, although only 13% of patients who cited no barriers were nonadherent. Among nonadherent patients, 31% or more cited each of the 11 barriers as important. Logistic regression analysis, adjusted for age, revealed that the following barriers were associated with higher odds of nonadherence: decreased self-efficacy (OR, 4.7; 95% CI, 2.2-9.7; P ≤ 0.0001), difficulty instilling drops (OR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.1-4.9; P = 0.03), forgetfulness (OR, 5.6; 95% CI, 2.6-12.1; P ≤ 0.0001), and difficulties with the medication schedule (OR, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.4-6.0; P = 0.006). For each additional barrier cited as important, there was a 10% increased odds of being nonadherent (OR, 1.1; 95% CI, 1.0-1.2; P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Each of the 11 barriers was important to at least 30% of surveyed patients with poor adherence, with most identifying multiple barriers to adherence. Low self-efficacy, forgetfulness, and difficulty with drop administration and the medication schedule were barriers associated with poor adherence. Interventions to improve medication adherence must address each patient's unique set of barriers.
Authors: Michael S Spencer; Ann-Marie Rosland; Edith C Kieffer; Brandy R Sinco; Melissa Valerio; Gloria Palmisano; Michael Anderson; J Ricardo Guzman; Michele Heisler Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2011-06-16 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Gemma C M Rossi; Gian Maria Pasinetti; Luigia Scudeller; Rosella Radaelli; Paolo Emilio Bianchi Journal: Eur J Ophthalmol Date: 2011 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.597
Authors: Julie C Lauffenburger; Thomas Isaac; Romit Bhattacharya; Thomas D Sequist; Chandrasekar Gopalakrishnan; Niteesh K Choudhry Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2019-11-07 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Paula Anne Newman-Casey; Maria A Woodward; Leslie M Niziol; Paul P Lee; Lindsey B De Lott Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2017-06-16 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Paula Anne Newman-Casey; Leslie M Niziol; Brenda W Gillespie; Nancy K Janz; Paul R Lichter; David C Musch Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2020-01-10 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Maziar Mohammadi; Kisha Patel; Seyedeh P Alaie; Ron B Shmueli; Cagri G Besirli; Ronald G Larson; Jordan J Green Journal: Acta Biomater Date: 2018-04-21 Impact factor: 8.947
Authors: Paula Anne Newman-Casey; Olivia J Killeen; Morgan Renner; Alan L Robin; Paul Lee; Michele Heisler Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2018-04-23 Impact factor: 3.536
Authors: Scott J Fudemberg; Dilru C Amarasekera; Marlee H Silverstein; Kathryn M Linder; Paul Heffner; Lisa A Hark; Michael Waisbourd Journal: J Community Health Date: 2016-08
Authors: Olivia J Killeen; Chamisa MacKenzie; Michele Heisler; Ken Resnicow; Paul P Lee; Paula Anne Newman-Casey Journal: J Glaucoma Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 2.503