Sahiti Bhaskara1, Eric A Whitsel2, Christie M Ballantyne3, Aaron R Folsom4. 1. Division of Epidemiology and Community Health, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, 1300 South Second Street, Suite 300, Minneapolis, MN 55454-1015, USA. Electronic address: bhask007@umn.edu. 2. Cardiovascular Disease Program, Departments of Epidemiology and Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Bank of America Center, Suite 301-B, 137 East Franklin Street, Chapel Hill, NC 27514, USA. Electronic address: eric_whitsel@unc.edu. 3. Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, 6565 Fannin Street, Suite A656, MS A601, Houston, TX 77030, USA. Electronic address: cmb@bcm.tmc.edu. 4. Division of Epidemiology and Community Health, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, 1300 South Second Street, Suite 300, Minneapolis, MN 55454-1015, USA. Electronic address: folso001@umn.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the validity of self-reported lipid medication use in an epidemiological study. METHODS: We studied medication self-reports compared with inventoried lipid medication containers at the fifth visit of the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study in 2011-2013 (n = 6370). To assess the validity of self-reports, we computed sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values. We used multiple logistic regression to determine whether validity varied by participant characteristics. Comparisons were made with visit 4 (n = 11,531), to determine if there was a change in validity as the pattern and types of lipid medication used changed over time. RESULTS: The prevalence of lipid medication use, according to medication containers was higher at visit 5 (56%) than visit 4 (14.3%). Statins were increasingly used. The percentage of participants reporting use/non-use accurately was 91.8% at visit 5, lower than visit 4 (97.3%). The unadjusted kappa coefficient of agreement was 0.83 (95% CI - 0.82 to 0.85) at visit 5 and 0.89 (95% CI - 0.88 to 0.90) at visit 4. Agreement was higher, compared with their counterparts, for women, younger and more educated participants, and those using fewer total medications. CONCLUSION: In this population sample, self-reported lipid medication use was highly accurate and therefore likely would be for similar epidemiological studies or clinical settings collecting this information.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the validity of self-reported lipid medication use in an epidemiological study. METHODS: We studied medication self-reports compared with inventoried lipid medication containers at the fifth visit of the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study in 2011-2013 (n = 6370). To assess the validity of self-reports, we computed sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values. We used multiple logistic regression to determine whether validity varied by participant characteristics. Comparisons were made with visit 4 (n = 11,531), to determine if there was a change in validity as the pattern and types of lipid medication used changed over time. RESULTS: The prevalence of lipid medication use, according to medication containers was higher at visit 5 (56%) than visit 4 (14.3%). Statins were increasingly used. The percentage of participants reporting use/non-use accurately was 91.8% at visit 5, lower than visit 4 (97.3%). The unadjusted kappa coefficient of agreement was 0.83 (95% CI - 0.82 to 0.85) at visit 5 and 0.89 (95% CI - 0.88 to 0.90) at visit 4. Agreement was higher, compared with their counterparts, for women, younger and more educated participants, and those using fewer total medications. CONCLUSION: In this population sample, self-reported lipid medication use was highly accurate and therefore likely would be for similar epidemiological studies or clinical settings collecting this information.
Authors: Jeffrey R Curtis; Andrew O Westfall; Jeroan Allison; Allison Freeman; Stacey H Kovac; Kenneth G Saag Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Margaret D Carroll; David A Lacher; Paul D Sorlie; James I Cleeman; David J Gordon; Michael Wolz; Scott M Grundy; Clifford L Johnson Journal: JAMA Date: 2005-10-12 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: P D Stolley; J A Tonascia; P E Sartwell; M S Tockman; S Tonascia; A Rutledge; R Schinnar Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 1978-03 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Alison M Mondul; Corinne E Joshu; John R Barber; Anna E Prizment; Nrupen A Bhavsar; Elizabeth Selvin; Aaron R Folsom; Elizabeth A Platz Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2018-10-16
Authors: Michael T Marrone; Alison M Mondul; Anna E Prizment; David Couper; John R Barber; Meera R Chappidi; Corinne E Joshu; Elizabeth A Platz Journal: JNCI Cancer Spectr Date: 2021-09-17