ArticleDrugs & aging2012
Content validity and inter-rater reliability of an instrument to characterize unintentional medication discrepancies.
Article in Drugs & aging, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The medication reconciliation process and classification of discrepancies: a systematic review.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2016Pooled it
- Assessing medication discrepancies in pediatric patients: a cross-sectional feasibility study using the Medication Discrepancy Taxonomy (MedTax) in a pediatric ward.BMC pediatrics · 2025Article
- A quality improvement study on the effect of electronic transmission of a basic discharge medication report on medication discrepancies in patients discharged from the hospital.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2024Article
- Digital transition in rural emergency medicine: Impact of job satisfaction and workload on communication and technology acceptance.PloS one · 2023Article
- ECHO-CT: An Interdisciplinary Videoconference Model for Identifying Potential Postdischarge Transition-of-Care Events.Journal of hospital medicine · 2021Article
- Simplifying Medication Regimens for People Receiving Community-Based Home Care Services: Outcomes of a Non-Randomized Pilot and Feasibility Study.Clinical interventions in aging · 2020Article
- Adaptation and validation of PCNE drug-related problem classification v6.2 in French-speaking Belgian community pharmacies.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2019Article
- A web application to involve patients in the medication reconciliation process: a user-centered usability and usefulness study.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2018Observational
- Toward Reporting Support and Quality Assessment for Learning from Reporting: A Necessary Data Elements Model for Narrative Medication Error Reports.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMedication discrepancies are medication-related problems (MRPs) that frequently occur when patients are transferred between settings of care. Older patients are at high risk for several reasons, including high consumption of medicines, and physical and cognitive deficiencies that can impair the communication process. Most previous studies that have evaluated medication discrepancies used instruments designed for clinical practice, but a well-validated and reliable instrument for clinical research is still lacking.
objectivesThe aims of this study were to (i) develop an instrument to characterize medication discrepancies that fulfils quality requirements for classification of MRPs related to continuity of care and (ii) assess its content validity and inter-rater reliability.
methodsThe instrument was developed based on three main inputs: (i) a literature review to collect information about the quality requirements of instruments to characterize MRPs; (ii) another literature review to identify existing instruments to characterize MRPs and, more specifically, medication discrepancies; and (iii) previous experience from a pilot study on Belgian patients discharged from surgical and medical wards. Content validity was assessed using a modified Delphi technique with 11 healthcare professionals. Content validity indexes were calculated. For inter-rater reliability, three pharmacists (one experienced and two naive) were asked to identify and categorize (type and cause of) unintentional medication discrepancies for 21 patients discharged from hospital into the community. The intra-class correlation coefficient was calculated to compare the number of discrepancies identified, and a paradox-resistant index (AC1) was used to determine the inter-rater reliability for the type and cause of the discrepancy.
resultsThe instrument had 54 items classified in three sections (type of discrepancy, cause and intervention), with detailed specifications on how to use it. All evaluations relative to content validity met predefined cut-off values, except for two of them. Intra-class correlation coefficients of ≥0.76 and AC1 coefficients of ≥0.89 were found for the number and the type of discrepancies, respectively. Regarding evaluation of the specific causes of medication discrepancies, final AC1 results of ≥0.86 were obtained, except for three items (which had values between 0.62 and 0.79).
conclusionThe validity and reliability of the instrument developed to assess unintentional medication discrepancies at patient transition from the hospital to the community setting was found to be satisfactory.
Indexed as
Identifiers
22715864What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.