Cited by 59HIV/AIDS Research and InterventionsMedication Adherence and ComplianceHIV/AIDS drug development and treatment

‘Simply forgot’ is the most frequently stated reason for missed doses of HAART irrespective of degree of adherence

Open access
Barfod, TS, Sørensen, HT, Nielsen, H, Rodkjær, L, Obel, N·2006·HIV Medicine

Abstract

Objectives: Previous studies have reported that forgetfulness is the most frequently mentioned reason for missed doses among patients on highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART). However, no previous study has compared the reasons given by highly nonadherent patients with the reasons given by patients with better adherence. The objective of this study was to examine further patients' self‐reported reasons for missing doses of HAART and to compare the reasons given by patients with lower adherence with those given by patients with higher adherence. Methods: All patients visiting the clinics participating in the Danish HIV cohort study during a 1‐year period (July 2002 to June 2003) were eligible if they had started HAART at least 6 months previously. Consenting patients completed an anonymous self‐administered questionnaire based upon the adult AIDS Clinical Trial Group adherence questionnaires. Lower adherence was defined as reporting a missed dose within the preceding 4 days. Results: We received usable questionnaires from 840 (75%) of the 1126 eligible patients. Patients with lower adherence reported the same reasons for missed doses as patients with higher adherence (Spearman's ρ=0.952, P<0.0001). In both groups of patients the three most frequently reported reasons for missed doses were ‘simply forgot’, ‘were away from home’, and ‘had a change in daily routines’. Conclusions: Patients with poorer adherence to HAART state the same reasons for missing doses as patients with better adherence, and ‘simply forgot’ is the most frequently stated reason.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1468-1293.2006.00387.x

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Barfod, T., Sørensen, H., Nielsen, H., Rodkjær, L., & Obel, N.
Affiliations
  • Aalborg University Hospital (DK)
  • Aarhus University Hospital (DK)
  • Odense University Hospital (DK)
Venue
HIV Medicine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2006-05-24
Volume
7
Issue
5
Pages
285-290
ISSN
  • 1464-2662 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-1293
OpenAlex
W2002965541
Cited by
59
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 5
FWCI
1.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • HIV Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Lægeforeningen
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › HIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Medication Adherence and Compliance
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › HIV/AIDS drug development and treatment
Keywords
highly active antiretroviral therapy, antiretroviral therapy adherence, missed doses, forgetfulness, HIV infection, daily routine changes
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Denmark, Drug Administration Schedule, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Compliance, Self Disclosure, HIV-1, HIV Infections, Treatment Refusal, Anti-HIV Agents, 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