Dong Roman Xu1, Wenjie Gong2, Steve Gloyd3, Eric D Caine4, Jane Simoni5, James P Hughes6, Shuiyuan Xiao7, Wenjun He8, Bofeng Dai8, Meijuan Lin7, Juan Nie1, Hua He9. 1. Sun Yat-sen Global Health Institute (SGHI), School of Public Health and Institute of National Governance of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China. 2. Xiangya School of Public Health, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China. Electronic address: gongwenjie@csu.edu.cn. 3. Department of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. 4. Department of Psychiatry, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA. 5. Department of Phycology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. 6. Department of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. 7. Xiangya School of Public Health, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China. 8. Department of Statistics, School of Public Health of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China. 9. Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the abundance of measures to assess medication adherence by persons suffering schizophrenia, few studies have evaluated their concordance and validity against a reference standard in resource-poor community settings. We explored the concordance and validity of several measures to assess antipsychotic medication adherence in a resource-poor community. METHOD: Based on a random sample of 278 villagers diagnosed with schizophrenia from Liuyang, Hunan Province, China, we used a concordance correlation coefficient (rc) and Kappa statistic to assess agreement among pill counts, refill records, clinician rating, Drug Attitude Inventory (DAI), and the Brief Adherence Rating Scale (BARS). The validity of various measures was evaluated by their concordance and sensitivity/specificity to home-based unannounced pill count (UPC) as the reference standard. RESULTS: The estimated proportion of adherent patients according to all measures (41% ~ 88%) was substantially higher than identified by UPC (35%). Concordance between any two measures was poor (rc/Kappa mostly <0.30). Validity of various measures also was poor against the UPC (rc < 0.20; Kappa <0.16), although refill records and the structured instruments (BARS) performed better than office-based pill counts and clinician impression. BARS, DAI and clinician rating were not sensitive to changes in adherence and would likely underestimate any program effect. CONCLUSION: In resource-poor community settings, most measures assessed in this study should not be used alone as they overestimated adherence, underestimated program effect, and had poor validity. A combination of UPC and several other measures may provide more insight into clinical trials and programmatic management.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Despite the abundance of measures to assess medication adherence by persons suffering schizophrenia, few studies have evaluated their concordance and validity against a reference standard in resource-poor community settings. We explored the concordance and validity of several measures to assess antipsychotic medication adherence in a resource-poor community. METHOD: Based on a random sample of 278 villagers diagnosed with schizophrenia from Liuyang, Hunan Province, China, we used a concordance correlation coefficient (rc) and Kappa statistic to assess agreement among pill counts, refill records, clinician rating, Drug Attitude Inventory (DAI), and the Brief Adherence Rating Scale (BARS). The validity of various measures was evaluated by their concordance and sensitivity/specificity to home-based unannounced pill count (UPC) as the reference standard. RESULTS: The estimated proportion of adherent patients according to all measures (41% ~ 88%) was substantially higher than identified by UPC (35%). Concordance between any two measures was poor (rc/Kappa mostly <0.30). Validity of various measures also was poor against the UPC (rc < 0.20; Kappa <0.16), although refill records and the structured instruments (BARS) performed better than office-based pill counts and clinician impression. BARS, DAI and clinician rating were not sensitive to changes in adherence and would likely underestimate any program effect. CONCLUSION: In resource-poor community settings, most measures assessed in this study should not be used alone as they overestimated adherence, underestimated program effect, and had poor validity. A combination of UPC and several other measures may provide more insight into clinical trials and programmatic management.
Authors: Diego Novick; Josep Maria Haro; David Suarez; Victor Perez; Ralf W Dittmann; Peter M Haddad Journal: Psychiatry Res Date: 2010-02-24 Impact factor: 3.222
Authors: Dawn I Velligan; Mei Wang; Pamela Diamond; David C Glahn; Desiree Castillo; Scott Bendle; Y W Francis Lam; Larry Ereshefsky; Alexander L Miller Journal: Psychiatr Serv Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 3.084
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: S L Spector; R Kinsman; H Mawhinney; S C Siegel; G S Rachelefsky; R M Katz; A S Rohr Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 1986-01 Impact factor: 10.793
Authors: Dawn I Velligan; Peter J Weiden; Martha Sajatovic; Jan Scott; Daniel Carpenter; Ruth Ross; John P Docherty Journal: J Clin Psychiatry Date: 2009 Impact factor: 4.384
Authors: Dawn I Velligan; Martha Sajatovic; Ainslie Hatch; Pavel Kramata; John P Docherty Journal: Patient Prefer Adherence Date: 2017-03-03 Impact factor: 2.711
Authors: Dong Roman Xu; Shuiyuan Xiao; Hua He; Eric D Caine; Stephen Gloyd; Jane Simoni; James P Hughes; Juan Nie; Meijuan Lin; Wenjun He; Yeqing Yuan; Wenjie Gong Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2019-04-23 Impact factor: 11.069