Development of a New Patient-Reported Medication Adherence Instrument: Concerns Influencing Medication Adherence

A systematic review of primary care-focused, self-reported medication adherence tools

BACKGROUND

Clinician recognition of nonadherence is generally low. Tools that clinicians have used to assess medication adherence are self-reported adherence instruments that ask patients questions about their medication use experience. There is a need for more structured reviews that help clinicians comprehensively distinguish which tool might be most useful and valuable for their clinical setting and patient populations.

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review aimed to (1) identify validated, self-reported medication adherence tools that are applicable to the primary care setting and (2) summarize selected features of the tools as an assessment of clinical feasibility and applicability.

METHODS

The investigators systematically reviewed MEDLINE via Ovid, Embase via Ovid, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and CINAHL from inception to December 1, 2020. Investigators independently screened 3394 citations, identifying 43 articles describing validation parameters for 25 unique adherence tools. After screening each tool, 17 tools met the inclusion criteria and were qualitatively summarized.

RESULTS

Findings highlight 25 various tool characteristics (i.e., descriptions, parameters and diseases, measures and validity comparators, and other information), which clinicians might consider when selecting a self-reported adherence tool with strong measurement validity that is practical to administer to patients. There was much variability about the nature and extent of adherence measurement. Considerable variation was noted in the objective measures used to correlate to the self-reported tools' measurements. There were wide ranges of correlation between self-reported and objective measures. Several included tools had relatively low to moderate criterion validities. Many manuscripts did not describe whether tools were associated with costs, had copyrights, and were available in other languages; how much time was required for patients to complete self-report tools; and whether patient input informed tool development.

CONCLUSION

There is a critical need to ensure that adherence tool developers establish a key list of tool characteristics to report to help clinicians and researchers make practical comparisons among tools.

Association between VTE and antibiotic prophylaxis guideline compliance and patient-reported outcomes after total hip and knee arthroplasty: an observational study

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infection (SSI) and venous thromboembolism (VTE) are associated with high burden and cost and are considered largely preventable following total knee or hip arthroplasty (TKA, THA). The risk of developing VTE and SSI is reduced when prophylaxis is compliant with evidence-based clinical guidelines. However, the association between VTE and antibiotic prophylaxis clinical guideline compliance and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) after THA/TKA is unknown. This study aims to explore whether care that is non-compliant with VTE and antibiotic guideline recommendations is associated with PROMs (Oxford Hip/Knee Score and EQ-5D Index scores) at 90- and 365-days after surgery.

METHODS

This prospective observational study included high-volume arthroplasty public and private sites and consenting eligible participants undergoing elective primary THA/TKA. We conducted multiple linear regression and linear mixed-effects modelling to explore the associations between non-compliance with VTE and antibiotic guidelines, and PROMs.

RESULTS

The sample included 1838 participants. Compliance with VTE and antibiotic guidelines was 35% and 13.2% respectively. In adjusted modelling, non-compliance with VTE guidelines was not associated with 90-day Oxford score (β = - 0.54, standard error [SE] = 0.34, p = 0.112) but was significantly associated with lower (worse) 365-day Oxford score (β = - 0.76, SE = 0.29, p = 0.009), lower EQ-5D Index scores at 90- (β = - 0.02 SE = 0.008, p = 0.011) and 365-days (β = - 0.03, SE = 0.008, p = 0.002).. The changes in Oxford and EQ-5D Index scores were not clinically important. Noncompliance with antibiotic guidelines was not associated with either PROM at 90- (Oxford: β = - 0.45, standard error [SE] = 0.47, p = 0.341; EQ-5D: β = - 0.001, SE = 0.011, p = 0.891) or 365-days (Oxford score: β = - 0.06, SE = 0.41, p = 0.880 EQ-5D: β = - 0.010, SE = 0.012, p = 0.383). Results were consistent when complications were included in the model and in linear mixed-effects modelling with the insurance sector as a random effect.

CONCLUSIONS

Non-compliance with VTE prophylaxis guidelines, but not antibiotic guidelines, is associated with statistically significant but not clinically meaningful differences in Oxford scores and EQ-5D Index scores at 365 days.

Shared decision-making to improve medication adherence

ABSTRACT

Shared decision-making is recommended in many clinical practice guidelines. Using a case study of medication adherence, this paper demonstrates how providers can utilize the concepts of shared decision-making to improve treatment decisions and increase patient self-efficacy in carrying out the plan of care.