These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Exploring the Agreement Between Self-Reported Medication Adherence and Pharmacy Refill-Based Measures in Patients with Kidney Disease.
    Author: Murali KM, Mullan J, Roodenrys S, Cheikh Hassan HI, Lonergan MA.
    Journal: Patient Prefer Adherence; 2022; 16():3465-3477. PubMed ID: 36605331.
    Abstract:
    AIM: To assess the quantitative and categorical agreement between two methods of measuring medication adherence: pharmacy refill-based medication possession rates and self-reported medication adherence scale. BACKGROUND: Categorisation of adherence metrics using empirical cut-off scores can lead to misclassification, which can be overcome by expressing adherence as a continuous variable. Pharmacy refill-based adherence can be reported as actual rates, but the validity of expressing self-reported medication adherence scores as a continuous variable to reflect adherence is unknown and its quantitative agreement with refill-based adherence rates untested. METHODS: Patients with kidney disease, including dialysis patients, from Illawarra Shoalhaven region of New South Wales, Australia were recruited between January 2015 and June 2016 to this cross-sectional study. Medication adherence was assessed using the self-reported Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS) and two pharmacy refill-based measures, Medication Possession Ratio (MPR) and Proportion of Days Covered (PDC) for antihypertensives and cardiometabolic drugs. Categorical and quantitative agreement between self-reported adherence and pharmacy refill-based adherence were assessed using tests of trend, analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), Cohen's kappa and Bland-Altman analysis. RESULTS: We recruited 113 patients. There was a significant declining trend of MPR (p < 0.001) and PDC (<0.001 for antihypertensives, p = 0.004 for cardiometabolic) scores among categories with worsening MMAS adherence. Adjusted ANCOVA showed significant association between self-report and pharmacy refill-based adherence (p < 0.001). Weighted Cohen's kappa statistics showed fair agreement between the self-report and pharmacy refill-based categories. Bland-Altman's analysis showed less than 5% of cases were outside the limits of agreement (-0.36 to 0.27) and the bias for MMAS was negative (-0.05 to -0.09), indicating MMAS did not overestimate adherence. CONCLUSION: There is modest agreement between pharmacy refill-based measures and self-report MMAS measures when assessed categorically or quantitatively. Assessing adherence as a continuous variable should be considered to overcome the challenges associated with categorization of adherence based on arbitrary thresholds.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]