Leah L Zullig1, Phil Mendys2, Hayden B Bosworth3. 1. Center for Health Services Research in Primary Care, Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System, Durham, NC, USA; Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA. Electronic address: leah.zullig@duke.edu. 2. Pfizer Inc. Medical Affairs, New York, NY, USA. Electronic address: phil.mendys@pfizer.com. 3. Center for Health Services Research in Primary Care, Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System, Durham, NC, USA; Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA; School of Nursing, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA; Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA. Electronic address: boswo001@mc.duke.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Medication adherence is a complex problem and can be evaluated using a variety of methods. There is no single or perfect strategy to assess adherence. The "best" measure depends on contextual factors. Our objective is to provide a practical, illustrative guide for selecting the most appropriate measure of medication adherence in common contexts. METHODS: We present three case studies - from the perspectives of an academic researcher, health care payer, and clinical care provider - to describe common problems and processes for measuring medication adherence, as well as proposing possible solutions. RESULTS: The most appropriate measure will depend on the context (tightly controlled clinical trial setting vs. clinical setting), intended purpose (research vs. clinical), available resources (data, personnel, materials, and funding), time (quick screening vs. comprehensive review), and phase of interest (initiation, implementation, or discontinuation). Framing the problem of medication non-adherence and methods for measuring adherence are discussed using three representative case studies. CONCLUSIONS: A simple tool is provided that may help stakeholders interested in medication adherence make decisions regarding the appropriate selection of measures. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: A medication adherence measure should be selected through the lens of each situation's unique objectives, resources, and needs. Published by Elsevier B.V.
OBJECTIVES: Medication adherence is a complex problem and can be evaluated using a variety of methods. There is no single or perfect strategy to assess adherence. The "best" measure depends on contextual factors. Our objective is to provide a practical, illustrative guide for selecting the most appropriate measure of medication adherence in common contexts. METHODS: We present three case studies - from the perspectives of an academic researcher, health care payer, and clinical care provider - to describe common problems and processes for measuring medication adherence, as well as proposing possible solutions. RESULTS: The most appropriate measure will depend on the context (tightly controlled clinical trial setting vs. clinical setting), intended purpose (research vs. clinical), available resources (data, personnel, materials, and funding), time (quick screening vs. comprehensive review), and phase of interest (initiation, implementation, or discontinuation). Framing the problem of medication non-adherence and methods for measuring adherence are discussed using three representative case studies. CONCLUSIONS: A simple tool is provided that may help stakeholders interested in medication adherence make decisions regarding the appropriate selection of measures. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: A medication adherence measure should be selected through the lens of each situation's unique objectives, resources, and needs. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Entities:
Keywords:
Case studies; Measurement; Medication adherence
Authors: Marie Krousel-Wood; Tareq Islam; Larry S Webber; Richard N Re; Donald E Morisky; Paul Muntner Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: Ann E Deschamps; Sabina De Geest; Anne-Mieke Vandamme; Herman Bobbaers; Willy E Peetermans; Eric Van Wijngaerden Journal: AIDS Patient Care STDS Date: 2008-09 Impact factor: 5.078
Authors: Sven Simons; Susanne Ringsdorf; Michael Braun; Ulrich J Mey; Peter F Schwindt; Yon D Ko; Ingo Schmidt-Wolf; Walther Kuhn; Ulrich Jaehde Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2010-06-16 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Michael J Stirratt; Jeffrey R Curtis; Maria I Danila; Richard Hansen; Michael J Miller; C Ann Gakumo Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Dong Roman Xu; Wenjie Gong; Steve Gloyd; Eric D Caine; Jane Simoni; James P Hughes; Shuiyuan Xiao; Wenjun He; Bofeng Dai; Meijuan Lin; Juan Nie; Hua He Journal: Schizophr Res Date: 2018-05-26 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Leah L Zullig; Connor Drake; Mohammad Shahsahebi; Renee A V Avecilla; Colette Whitney; Coleman Mills; Kevin C Oeffinger Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2022-05-17 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Dawn L Hershman; Joseph M Unger; Grace Clarke Hillyer; Anna Moseley; Kathryn B Arnold; Shaker R Dakhil; Benjamin T Esparaz; Ming C Kuan; Mark L Graham; Douglas M Lackowski; William J Edenfield; Zoneddy R Dayao; N Lynn Henry; Julie R Gralow; Scott D Ramsey; Alfred I Neugut Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2020-05-05 Impact factor: 50.717
Authors: Zachary A Marcum; Rod L Walker; Bobby L Jones; Arvind Ramaprasan; Shelly L Gray; Sascha Dublin; Paul K Crane; Eric B Larson Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2019-02-14 Impact factor: 3.921
Authors: Betina Yanez; Laura B Oswald; Alyssa N Van Denburg; Sharon H Baik; Katherine A Czech; Diana Buitrago; Carly Maletich; Katy Wortman; Frank J Penedo; David E Victorson Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Commun Date: 2022-02-02