CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 177Medication Adherence and CompliancePharmacy and Medical PracticesSurvey Methodology and Nonresponse

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 42 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Correlation between adherence rates measured by MEMS and self-reported questionnaires: a meta-analysis

Open access
Shi, Lizheng, Liu, Jinan, Fonseca, Vivian, Walker, Philip, Kalsekar, Anupama, Pawaskar, Manjiri·2010·Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
DOI 10.1186/1477-7525-8-99PMC PMC2944346
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

PURPOSE: It is vital to understand the associations between the medication event monitoring systems (MEMS) and self-reported questionnaires (SRQs) because both are often used to measure medication adherence and can produce different results. In addition, the economic implication of using alternative measures is important as the cost of electronic monitoring devices is not covered by insurance, while self-reports are the most practical and cost-effective method in the clinical settings. This meta-analysis examined the correlations of two measurements of medication adherence: MEMS and SRQs. METHODS: The literature search (1980-2009) used PubMed, OVID MEDLINE, PsycINFO (EBSCO), CINAHL (EBSCO), OVID HealthStar, EMBASE (Elsevier), and Cochrane Databases. Studies were included if the correlation coefficients [Pearson (rp) or Spearman (rs)] between adherences measured by both MEMS and SRQs were available or could be calculated from other statistics in the articles. Data were independently abstracted in duplicate with standardized protocol and abstraction form including 1) first author's name; 2) year of publication; 3) disease status of participants; 4) sample size; 5) mean age (year); 6) duration of trials (month); 7) SRQ names if available; 8) adherence (%) measured by MEMS; 9) adherence (%) measured by SRQ; 10) correlation coefficient and relative information, including p-value, 95% confidence interval (CI). A meta-analysis was conducted to pool the correlation coefficients using random-effect model. RESULTS: Eleven studies (N = 1,684 patients) met the inclusion criteria. The mean of adherence measured by MEMS was 74.9% (range 53.4%-92.9%), versus 84.0% by SRQ (range 68.35%-95%). The correlation between adherence measured by MEMS and SRQs ranged from 0.24 to 0.87. The pooled correlation coefficient for 11 studies was 0.45 (p = 0.001, 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 0.34-0.56). The subgroup meta-analysis on the seven studies reporting rp and four studies reporting rs reported the pooled correlation coefficient: 0.46 (p = 0.011, 95% CI: 0.33-0.59) and 0.43 (p = 0.0038, 95% CI: 0.23-0.64), respectively. No differences were found for other subgroup analyses. CONCLUSION: Medication adherence measured by MEMS and SRQs tends to be at least moderately correlated, suggesting that SRQs give a good estimate of medication adherence.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1477-7525-8-99

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Flow Chart of Articles Identified and Evaluated during the Study Selection Process.
Figure 1 Flow Chart of Articles Identified and Evaluated during the Study Selection Process.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Correlation coefficients between adherences measures by MEMS and self reported questionnaires and corresponding 95% confidence intervals by study and pooled.
Figure 2 Correlation coefficients between adherences measures by MEMS and self reported questionnaires and corresponding 95% confidence intervals by study and pooled.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

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

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

1 retracted

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Morisky DE Nonadherence to medical recommendations for hypertensive patients: Problems and potential solutions Journal of Compliance in Health Care 1986 1 1 5 20

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 177

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Shi, L., Liu, J., Fonseca, V., Walker, P., Kalsekar, A., & Pawaskar, M.
Affiliations
  • Tulane University (US)
  • Eli Lilly (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
Shi, Lizheng
ORCID
Venue
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2010
Volume
8
Issue
1
Pages
99
ISSN
1477-7525 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/1477-7525-8-99
PMC
PMC2944346
OpenAlex
W2159285055
Cited by
177
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 11
FWCI
2.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Health and Quality of Life Outcomes (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Medication Adherence and Compliance
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Pharmacy › Pharmacy and Medical Practices
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
Keywords
medication adherence, medication event monitoring system, self-report questionnaire, electronic medication monitoring
MeSH terms
Assessment of Medication Adherence, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Humans, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Drug Monitoring, Medication Adherence, Self Report

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