Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25784791›Full record

ArticlePatient preference and adherence2015

The development of the ProMAS: a Probabilistic Medication Adherence Scale.

Mieke Kleppe, Joyca Lacroix, Jaap Ham, Cees Midden

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Mieke KleppeHuman Technology Interaction, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, the Netherlands ; Behavior, Cognition and Perception, Philips Research, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
Joyca LacroixBehavior, Cognition and Perception, Philips Research, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
Jaap HamHuman Technology Interaction, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
Cees MiddenHuman Technology Interaction, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Current self-report medication adherence measures often provide heavily skewed results with limited variance, suggesting that most participants are highly adherent. This contrasts with findings from objective adherence measures. We argue that one of the main limitations of these self-report measures is the limited range covered by the behaviors assessed. That is, the items do not match the adherence behaviors that people perform, resulting in a ceiling effect. In this paper, we present a new self-reported medication adherence scale based on the Rasch model approach (the ProMAS), which covers a wide range of adherence behaviors. The ProMAS was tested with 370 elderly receiving medication for chronic conditions. The results indicated that the ProMAS provided adherence scores with sufficient fit to the Rasch model. Furthermore, the ProMAS covered a wider range of adherence behaviors compared to the widely used Medication Adherence Report Scale (MARS) instrument, resulting in more variance and less skewness in adherence scores. We conclude that the ProMAS is more capable of discriminating between people with different adherence rates than the MARS.

Indexed as

methodologyprobabilistic modelsquestionnaire design

Identifiers

PMID25784791
PMCPMC4356448

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.