Cited by 153HIV/AIDS Research and InterventionsMedication Adherence and ComplianceMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

Standard care quality determines treatment outcomes in control groups of HAART-adherence intervention studies: Implications for the interpretation and comparison of intervention effects.

Open access
de Bruin, Marijn, Viechtbauer, Wolfgang, Hospers, Harm J., Schaalma, Herman P., Kok, Gerjo·2009·Health Psychology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Clinical trials of behavioral interventions seek to enhance evidence-based health care. However, in case the quality of standard care provided to control conditions varies between studies and affects outcomes, intervention effects cannot be directly interpreted or compared. The objective of the present study was to examine whether standard care quality (SCQ) could be reliably assessed, varies between studies of highly active antiretroviral HIV-adherence interventions, and is related to the proportion of patients achieving an undetectable viral load ("success rate"). DESIGN: Databases were searched for relevant articles. Authors of selected studies retrospectively completed a checklist with standard care activities, which were coded to compute SCQ scores. The relationship between SCQ and the success rates was examined using meta-regression. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cronbach's alpha, variability in SCQ, and relation between SCQ and success rate. RESULTS: Reliability of the SCQ instrument was high (Cronbach's alpha = .91). SCQ scores ranged from 3.7 to 27.8 (total range = 0-30) and were highly predictive of success rate (p = .002). CONCLUSIONS: Variation in SCQ provided to control groups may substantially influence effect sizes of behavior change interventions. Future trials should therefore assess and report SCQ, and meta-analyses should control for variability in SCQ, thereby producing more accurate estimates of the effectiveness of behavior change interventions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0015989

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
de Bruin, M., Viechtbauer, W., Hospers, H. J., Schaalma, H. P., & Kok, G.
Affiliations
Maastricht University (NL)
Venue
Health Psychology
Published
2009
Volume
28
Issue
6
Pages
668-674
ISSN
  • 0278-6133 (ISSN-L)
  • 1930-7810
OpenAlex
W2103906794
Cited by
152
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 11
FWCI
5.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Health Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Socio-Environmental Systems Modeling (acceptedVersion)
  • Lirias (submittedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › HIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Medication Adherence and Compliance
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
HIV, antiretroviral therapy adherence, undetectable viral load, behaviour change interventions, meta-regression, intervention effect size, quality of care evaluation
MeSH terms
Humans, Patient Compliance, Quality of Health Care, Retrospective Studies, Reproducibility of Results, HIV Infections, Treatment Outcome, Antiretroviral Therapy, Highly Active

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review