Cited by 72Medication Adherence and ComplianceCystic Fibrosis Research AdvancesAdolescent and Pediatric Healthcare

Trajectories of adherence to airway clearance therapy for patients with cystic fibrosis

Modi, A. C., Cassedy, A. E., Quittner, A. L., Accurso, F., Sontag, M., Koenig, J. M., Ittenbach, R. F.·2010·Journal of Pediatric Psychology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Although cross-sectional studies have demonstrated poor adherence to airway clearance therapy (ACT) for patients with cystic fibrosis (CF), no studies have identified longitudinal patterns of adherence. The objective was to characterize and identify predictors of ACT adherence trajectories for individuals with CF. METHODS: Secondary data analyses were conducted for a randomized clinical trial examining differences in three ACTs. Participants (n = 153; M = 14.3 years, 55% male, 86% Caucasian, baseline FEV(1)% predicted: M = 86.7)/primary caregivers completed Daily Phone Diaries, an empirically supported adherence measure, every 4 months. RESULTS: Group-based trajectory modeling revealed the best-fitting solution was a three-group model: low-adherence (14%), medium-adherence (49%), and high-adherence (37%) groups. ACT type was the only significant predictor of adherence trajectories. DISCUSSION: Three trajectories of adherence to ACT for patients with CF were found. With the identification of trajectories, adherence interventions can be targeted for the subgroup at highest risk in order to prevent poor health outcomes.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/jpepsy/jsq015

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

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Modi 2010 describes an RCT comparing three airway secretion clearance therapies in CF (postural drainage and percussion, flutter device, or high frequency chest wall oscillation), so it is not focused on improving adherence to inhaled therapies.

    “Modi 2010 This study describes an RCT comparing three airway secretion clearance therapies in CF: 1) postural drainage and percussion, 2) flutter device or 3) high frequency chest wall oscillation -i.e. it is not focused on improving adherence to inhaled therapies.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Modi, A. C., Cassedy, A. E., Quittner, A. L., Accurso, F., Sontag, M., Koenig, J. M., & Ittenbach, R. F.
Affiliations
Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center (US)
Venue
Journal of Pediatric Psychology
Published
2010-03-18
Volume
35
Issue
9
Pages
1028-1037
ISSN
  • 0146-8693 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-735X
OpenAlex
W2148119059
Cited by
72
References
34
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 3
FWCI
3.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Pediatric Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Medication Adherence and Compliance
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Cystic Fibrosis Research Advances
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Speech and Hearing › Adolescent and Pediatric Healthcare
Keywords
cystic fibrosis, airway clearance therapy, medication adherence, adherence trajectories, group-based trajectory modeling, predictors of adherence, pediatric patients, adherence interventions
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Cystic Fibrosis, Female, Health Status, Humans, Male, Patient Compliance, Surveys and Questionnaires, Respiratory Function Tests, Respiratory Therapy

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