Myriam Gagné1,2, Louis-Philippe Boulet1,2,3, Norma Pérez4, Jocelyne Moisan4,5. 1. Knowledge Translation, Education and Prevention Chair in Respiratory and Cardiovascular Health, Laval University, Quebec City, QC, Canada. 2. Quebec Heart and Lung Institute-Laval University, Quebec City, QC, Canada. 3. Faculty of Medicine, Laval University, Quebec City, QC, Canada. 4. CHU de Quebec-Laval University Research Center, Population Health and Optimal Health Practices Research Unit, Quebec City, QC, Canada. 5. Faculty of Pharmacy, Laval University, Quebec City, QC, Canada.
Abstract
AIM: The aim of the present study was to identify systematically the measurement properties of patient-reported outcome instruments (PROs) that evaluate adherence to inhaled maintenance medication in adults with asthma. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of six databases. Two reviewers independently included studies on the measurement properties of PROs that evaluated adherence in asthmatic participants aged ≥18 years. Based on the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN), the reviewers: (i) extracted data on internal consistency, reliability, measurement error, content validity, structural validity, hypotheses testing, cross-cultural validity, criterion validity and responsiveness; (ii) assessed the methodological quality of the included studies; (iii) assessed the quality of the measurement properties (positive or negative); and (iv) summarized the level of evidence (limited, moderate or strong). RESULTS: We screened 6068 records and included 15 studies (14 PROs). No studies evaluated measurement error or responsiveness. Based on methodological and measurement property quality assessments, we found limited positive evidence of: (i) internal consistency of the Adherence Questionnaire, Refined Medication Adherence Reason (MAR) scale, Medication Adherence Report Scale for Asthma (MARS-A) and Test of the Adherence to Inhalers (TAI); (ii) reliability of the TAI; and (iii) structural validity of the adherence questionnaire, MAR scale, MARS-A and TAI. We also found limited negative evidence of: (i) hypotheses testing of the Adherence Questionnaire; (ii) reliability of the MARS-A; and (iii) criterion validity of the MARS-A and TAI. CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlighted the need to conduct further high-quality studies to evaluate the reliability, validity and responsiveness of the available PROs.
AIM: The aim of the present study was to identify systematically the measurement properties of patient-reported outcome instruments (PROs) that evaluate adherence to inhaled maintenance medication in adults with asthma. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of six databases. Two reviewers independently included studies on the measurement properties of PROs that evaluated adherence in asthmatic participants aged ≥18 years. Based on the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN), the reviewers: (i) extracted data on internal consistency, reliability, measurement error, content validity, structural validity, hypotheses testing, cross-cultural validity, criterion validity and responsiveness; (ii) assessed the methodological quality of the included studies; (iii) assessed the quality of the measurement properties (positive or negative); and (iv) summarized the level of evidence (limited, moderate or strong). RESULTS: We screened 6068 records and included 15 studies (14 PROs). No studies evaluated measurement error or responsiveness. Based on methodological and measurement property quality assessments, we found limited positive evidence of: (i) internal consistency of the Adherence Questionnaire, Refined Medication Adherence Reason (MAR) scale, Medication Adherence Report Scale for Asthma (MARS-A) and Test of the Adherence to Inhalers (TAI); (ii) reliability of the TAI; and (iii) structural validity of the adherence questionnaire, MAR scale, MARS-A and TAI. We also found limited negative evidence of: (i) hypotheses testing of the Adherence Questionnaire; (ii) reliability of the MARS-A; and (iii) criterion validity of the MARS-A and TAI. CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlighted the need to conduct further high-quality studies to evaluate the reliability, validity and responsiveness of the available PROs.
Authors: Lidwine B Mokkink; Caroline B Terwee; Donald L Patrick; Jordi Alonso; Paul W Stratford; Dirk L Knol; Lex M Bouter; Henrica C W de Vet Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Alessandro Liberati; Douglas G Altman; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Cynthia Mulrow; Peter C Gøtzsche; John P A Ioannidis; Mike Clarke; P J Devereaux; Jos Kleijnen; David Moher Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2009-07-23 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Bernard Vrijens; Alexandra L Dima; Eric Van Ganse; Job F M van Boven; Michelle N Eakin; Juliet M Foster; Marijn de Bruin; Alison Chisholm; David Price Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract Date: 2016 Sep-Oct
Authors: A Bourdin; L Halimi; I Vachier; F Paganin; A Lamouroux; M Gouitaa; E Vairon; P Godard; P Chanez Journal: Clin Exp Allergy Date: 2012-11 Impact factor: 5.018
Authors: Katherine M Walewski; Lisa Cicutto; Anthony D D'Urzo; Ronald J Heslegrave; Kenneth R Chapman Journal: J Asthma Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 2.515
Authors: Katayoun Bahadori; Mary M Doyle-Waters; Carlo Marra; Larry Lynd; Kadria Alasaly; John Swiston; J Mark FitzGerald Journal: BMC Pulm Med Date: 2009-05-19 Impact factor: 3.317
Authors: Yu Heng Kwan; Si Dun Weng; Dionne Hui Fang Loh; Truls Østbye; Lian Leng Low; Hayden Barry Bosworth; Julian Thumboo; Jie Kie Phang; Livia Jia Yi Oo; Dan V Blalock; Eng Hui Chew; Kai Zhen Yap; Corrinne Yong Koon Tan; Sungwon Yoon; Warren Fong Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2020-10-09 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Sarah Bentley; Lucy Morgan; Elizabeth Exall; Rob Arbuckle; Rebecca C Rossom; Nicholas Roche; Kamlesh Khunti; Victoria Higgins; James Piercy Journal: Patient Prefer Adherence Date: 2022-09-15 Impact factor: 2.314