Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 756

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Measurement of Adherence in Pharmacy Administrative Databases: A Proposal for Standard Definitions and Preferred Measures

Hess, Lisa M, Raebel, Marsha A, Conner, Douglas A, Malone, Daniel C·2006·Annals of Pharmacotherapy

Abstract

Background: A variety of measures have been developed to calculate refill adherence from administrative data such as pharmacy claims databases. These measures have focused on improving the accuracy of adherence measures or clarifying the evaluation time frame. As a result, there are many measures used to assess adherence that may or may not be comparable or accurate. Objective: To compare available refill adherence measures. Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify current or recently used measures of calculating adherence from administrative data. A MEDLINE search (January 1990–March 2006) was undertaken using the search terms adherence or compliance in the title combined with administrative, pharmacy, or records in any field, including subheadings medical, nursing, and hospital records. Non-English articles were excluded. Seven hundred fifteen articles were available for review. Review articles and letters were excluded from measure selection, but were included in the search terms and used to identify additional research articles. Adherence measures were excluded if they were incompletely described, produced non-numeric values, or were duplicates. Eleven refill adherence measures were identified and compared using data from the LOSE Weight (Long-term Outcomes of Sibutramine Effectiveness on Weight) study. Measures compared include Continuous Measure of Medication Acquisition (CMA); Continuous Multiple Interval Measure of Oversupply (CMOS); Medication Possession Ratio (MPR); Medication Refill Adherence (MRA); Continuous Measure of Medication Gaps (CMG); Continuous, Single Interval Measure of Medication Aquisition (CSA); Proportion of Days Covered (PDC); Refill Compliance Rate (RCR); Medication Possession Ratio, modified (MPRm); Dates Between Fills Adherence Rate (DBR); and Compliance Rate (CR). Results: The results suggest that the CMA, CMOS, MPR, and MRA are identical in terms of measuring adherence to prescription refills throughout the study period, each with a value of 63.5%; CMG and PDC are slightly lower (63.0%) and are equivalent to MRA when oversupply is truncated. CR, MPRm, RCR, and CSA result in higher adherence values of 84.4%, 86.6%, 104.8%, and 109.7%, respectively. Conclusions: Five measures produce equivalent results for measuring prescription refill adherence over the evaluation period. Of these, MRA has the fewest calculations, is easily truncated if one desires to exclude surplus medication issues, and requires the least amount of data. MRA is therefore recommended as the preferred measure of adherence using administrative data.

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 · 10.1345/aph.1h018

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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

Show all 4 references

Research works printed but not linked: 29

  1. Haynes RB, 1979, Compliance in health care
  2. Enstrom I, 2000, Is compliance an issue? J Fam Pract, 49, 634
  3. 10.1097/00002030-199817000-00012 · DOI
  4. 10.1016/S0041-1345(99)00118-9 · DOI
  5. 10.1258/0956462042563666 · DOI
  6. 10.1097/01.mlr.0000163641.86870.af · DOI · Paper page
  7. 10.1002/pds.1226 · DOI
  8. 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-05-0104 · DOI
  9. 10.1016/0197-2456(84)90012-6 · DOI
  10. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.04.002 · DOI
  11. 10.1046/j.1365-2710.2002.00411.x · DOI
  12. 10.1016/S1098-3015(10)60929-1 · doi:10.1016/s1098-3015(10)60929-1
  13. Porter JA, 2004, Am J Manag Care, 10, 369
  14. Skaer TL, 1993, Clin Ther, 15, 905
  15. 10.1016/S0895-4356(96)00268-5 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Iezzoni LI, 1997, Risk adjustment for measuring health care outcomes
  17. 10.1097/00005650-199711000-00008 · DOI
  18. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.02.002 · DOI
  19. 10.1176/appi.ps.55.8.886 · DOI · Paper page
  20. 10.1111/j.1399-0012.2004.00301.x · DOI
  21. Hamilton RA, 1992, Am J Hosp Pharm, 49, 1691
  22. 10.1046/j.1365-2710.2002.00387.x · DOI
  23. Sturgess IK, 2000, Pharmaceut J, 265, R35
  24. 10.1016/j.clinthera.2004.12.018 · DOI
  25. 10.1001/jama.288.4.455 · DOI · Paper page
  26. 10.1097/00005650-199909000-00002 · DOI · Paper page
  27. 10.1007/BF02850203 · DOI
  28. 10.18553/jmcp.2003.9.5.424 · DOI
  29. Thiebaud P, 2005, Am J Manag Care, 11, 670

Cited by

See all 756

Metadata

Authors
Hess, L. M., Raebel, M. A., Conner, D. A., & Malone, D. C.
Venue
Annals of Pharmacotherapy
Published
2006-07
Volume
40
Issue
7-8
Pages
1280-1288
ISSN
  • 0012-6578 (ISSN-L)
  • 1060-0280
  • 1542-6270
OpenAlex
W2157029647
Cited by
756
References
4
FWCI
11.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Measurement of Adherence in Pharmacy Administrative Databases: A Proposal for Standard Definitions and Preferred Measures. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1345/aph.1h018
The paper
Hess, L. M., Raebel, M. A., Conner, D. A., & Malone, D. C. (2006). Measurement of Adherence in Pharmacy Administrative Databases: A Proposal for Standard Definitions and Preferred Measures. Annals of Pharmacotherapy. https://doi.org/10.1345/aph.1h018

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.