Nicholas A Giordano1, Kathryn A Riman2, Rachel French2, Marguerite Daus3, Alisa J Stephens-Shields4, Stephen E Kimmel5, Barbara Riegel6. 1. Nell Hodgson Woodruff School of Nursing, 1520 Clifton Rd, Atlanta, GA 30322, United States of America. 2. Center for Health Outcomes and Policy Research, School of Nursing at the University of Pennsylvania, 418 Curie Boulevard, Philadelphia, PA 19104-4217, United States of America. 3. Center for Health Outcomes and Policy Research, School of Nursing at the University of Pennsylvania, 418 Curie Boulevard, Philadelphia, PA 19104-4217, United States of America; Hillman Scholar in Nursing Innovation, School of Nursing at the University of Pennsylvania, 418 Curie Boulevard, Philadelphia, PA 19104-4217, United States of America. 4. Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, 423 Guardian Drive, Philadelphia, PA 19104, United States of America. 5. University of Florida, Department of Epidemiology, 2004 Mowry Road, Gainesville, FL 32610. 6. School of Nursing at the University of Pennsylvania, 418 Curie Boulevard, Philadelphia, PA 19104-4217, United States of America. Electronic address: briegel@nursing.upenn.edu.
Abstract
AIM: The purpose of this study was to determine the extent of agreement between adherence measures obtained using two technological interventions, electronic monitoring (EM) and a smartphone application (App). BACKGROUND: Clinicians, patients, and researchers depend on valid measurements of medication adherence to inform the delivery of preemptive care when needed. Technology is routinely used for monitoring medication adherence in both clinical practice and research, yet there is a dearth of research comparing novel App based approaches to traditional approaches used for assessing medication adherence. METHODS: Adherence rates were captured on both the EM and the App for 3697 daily observations from 44 participants with acute coronary syndrome over 90 days immediately following discharge from acute care. For EM, adherence was measured using EM equipped pill bottles. For the App, adherence was measured by having participants upload daily photos to the App prior to taking their daily aspirin. Agreement was assessed using a Bland-Altman analysis. RESULTS: The mean adherence rate was higher on the App, 92%, than the EM, 78% (p < 0.001). The mean difference in adherence rates between these methods was 14% (95% Confidence Interval: -23%, -5%). CONCLUSIONS: These findings illustrate a lack of agreement between technological interventions used for measuring adherence in cardiovascular patient populations, with higher adherence rates observed with the App compared to EM. These findings are salient given the increased reliance on telehealth due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.
AIM: The purpose of this study was to determine the extent of agreement between adherence measures obtained using two technological interventions, electronic monitoring (EM) and a smartphone application (App). BACKGROUND: Clinicians, patients, and researchers depend on valid measurements of medication adherence to inform the delivery of preemptive care when needed. Technology is routinely used for monitoring medication adherence in both clinical practice and research, yet there is a dearth of research comparing novel App based approaches to traditional approaches used for assessing medication adherence. METHODS: Adherence rates were captured on both the EM and the App for 3697 daily observations from 44 participants with acute coronary syndrome over 90 days immediately following discharge from acute care. For EM, adherence was measured using EM equipped pill bottles. For the App, adherence was measured by having participants upload daily photos to the App prior to taking their daily aspirin. Agreement was assessed using a Bland-Altman analysis. RESULTS: The mean adherence rate was higher on the App, 92%, than the EM, 78% (p < 0.001). The mean difference in adherence rates between these methods was 14% (95% Confidence Interval: -23%, -5%). CONCLUSIONS: These findings illustrate a lack of agreement between technological interventions used for measuring adherence in cardiovascular patient populations, with higher adherence rates observed with the App compared to EM. These findings are salient given the increased reliance on telehealth due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.
Authors: Dariush Mozaffarian; Emelia J Benjamin; Alan S Go; Donna K Arnett; Michael J Blaha; Mary Cushman; Sandeep R Das; Sarah de Ferranti; Jean-Pierre Després; Heather J Fullerton; Virginia J Howard; Mark D Huffman; Carmen R Isasi; Monik C Jiménez; Suzanne E Judd; Brett M Kissela; Judith H Lichtman; Lynda D Lisabeth; Simin Liu; Rachel H Mackey; David J Magid; Darren K McGuire; Emile R Mohler; Claudia S Moy; Paul Muntner; Michael E Mussolino; Khurram Nasir; Robert W Neumar; Graham Nichol; Latha Palaniappan; Dilip K Pandey; Mathew J Reeves; Carlos J Rodriguez; Wayne Rosamond; Paul D Sorlie; Joel Stein; Amytis Towfighi; Tanya N Turan; Salim S Virani; Daniel Woo; Robert W Yeh; Melanie B Turner Journal: Circulation Date: 2016-01-26 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Gantt P Galloway; Jeremy R Coyle; José Enrique Guillén; Keith Flower; John E Mendelson Journal: J Addict Med Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 3.702
Authors: Roderick W Treskes; Enno T Van der Velde; Jan W Schoones; Martin J Schalij Journal: Expert Rev Med Devices Date: 2018-01-02 Impact factor: 3.166
Authors: Jay Thakkar; Rahul Kurup; Tracey-Lea Laba; Karla Santo; Aravinda Thiagalingam; Anthony Rodgers; Mark Woodward; Julie Redfern; Clara K Chow Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2016-03 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Yousuf Gandapur; Sina Kianoush; Heval M Kelli; Satish Misra; Bruno Urrea; Michael J Blaha; Garth Graham; Francoise A Marvel; Seth S Martin Journal: Eur Heart J Qual Care Clin Outcomes Date: 2016-10-01
Authors: P Michael Ho; Anne Lambert-Kerzner; Evan P Carey; Ibrahim E Fahdi; Chris L Bryson; S Dee Melnyk; Hayden B Bosworth; Tiffany Radcliff; Ryan Davis; Howard Mun; Jennifer Weaver; Casey Barnett; Anna Barón; Eric J Del Giacco Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2014-02-01 Impact factor: 21.873