CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 274Medication Adherence and CompliancePharmacy and Medical PracticesPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 30 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Adherence: Comparison of Methods to Assess Medication Adherence and Classify Nonadherence

Hansen, Richard A, Kim, Mimi M, Song, Liping, Tu, Wanzhu, Wu, Jingwei, Murray, Michael D·2009·Annals of Pharmacotherapy
DOI 10.1345/aph.1l496
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background: Medication adherence is suboptimal, and clinicians and researchers struggle with identifying nonadherent patients. Various measures of medication adherence exist, but there is controversy regarding which measures provide acceptable data and how nonadherence should be defined. Objective: To assess agreement among patient self-report, pharmacy refill, and electronic adherence measures and compare the sensitivity and specificity of different cut-points for defining nonadherence. Methods: Data were analyzed from 2 similarly designed randomized controlled trials that assessed a pharmacist's intervention to improve medication adherence among patients with hypertension or heart failure. For each participant, adherence was measured by patient self-report, prescription refill records, and electronic lids on medication containers. Agreement among measures was assessed using Spearman's correlation coefficient rho. Correlation coefficients were compared by patient characteristics using Fisher's Z transformation, The sensitivity and specificity of different cut-points for defining nonadherence were calculated. Results: Median adherence was 84% for self-report, 86% for electronic, and 91% for prescription refill adherence measurement. Refill and electronic adherence demonstrated the best agreement among measures (rho = 0.48). Age, depression, and other comorbid conditions influenced agreement among measures. Measures were generally in agreement, regardless of how nonadherence was defined. A cut-point of 80% illustrated a fair balance between sensitivity and specificity for all measures. Conclusions: All measures provided similar estimates of overall adherence, although refill and electronic measures were in highest agreement. In selection of a measure, practitioners should consider population and disease characteristics, since measurement agreement could be influenced by these and other factors. The commonly used, clinically based cut-point of 80% had a reasonable balance between sensitivity and specificity in studies of adherence in patients with heart failure or hypertension.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1345/aph.1l496

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. 10.1037/0022-006X.50.6.950 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 274

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Hansen, R. A., Kim, M. M., Song, L., Tu, W., Wu, J., & Murray, M. D.
Affiliations
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • Shaw University (US)
  • Regenstrief Institute (US)
  • Indiana University School of Medicine (US)
ORCID
Venue
Annals of Pharmacotherapy
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2009-03
Volume
43
Issue
3
Pages
413-422
ISSN
  • 0012-6578 (ISSN-L)
  • 1060-0280
  • 1542-6270
DOI
10.1345/aph.1l496
OpenAlex
W2124742359
Cited by
274
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 23
FWCI
15.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Annals of Pharmacotherapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute on Aging (R01 AG 19105, R01AG019105)
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (R01HL69399, R01HL069399)
  • National Center for Research Resources (K12RR023248)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Medication Adherence and Compliance
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Pharmacy › Pharmacy and Medical Practices
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Pharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Keywords
medication adherence, patient self-report, sensitivity and specificity, hypertension, heart failure, pharmacist intervention, depression, comorbidities
MeSH terms
Assessment of Medication Adherence, Data Collection, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Education as Topic, Pharmaceutical Services, Drug Prescriptions, Sensitivity and Specificity, Drug Monitoring, Medication Adherence

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