Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25884193›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2015

Validation of the Adherence Barriers Questionnaire - an instrument for identifying potential risk factors associated with medication-related non-adherence.

Sabrina Müller, Thomas Kohlmann, Thomas Wilke

Abstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Medication adherence in geriatric patients attending medical outpatient department.South African family practice : official journal of the South African Academy of Family Practice/Primary Care · 2024
    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

3 authors.

Sabrina MüllerInstitut für Pharmakoökonomie und Arzneimittellogistik (IPAM), Hochschule Wismar, Philipp-Müller-Straße 12, Wismar, 23966, Germany. sabrina.mueller@ipam-wismar.de.
Thomas KohlmannInstitut für Community Medicine, Universitätsmedizin Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany. thomas.kohlmann@uni-greifswald.de.
Thomas WilkeInstitut für Pharmakoökonomie und Arzneimittellogistik (IPAM), Hochschule Wismar, Philipp-Müller-Straße 12, Wismar, 23966, Germany. thomas.wilke@ipam-wismar.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMedication non-adherence is a major challenge in the real-life treatment of chronically ill patients. To meet this challenge, adherence interventions with a tailored approach towards patient-specific adherence barriers that are identified with a reliable and practicable questionnaire are needed. The aim of this investigation was to develop and validate such a questionnaire, the "Adherence Barriers Questionnaire (ABQ)".

methodsThe German ABQ was developed and tested in 432 patients with atrial fibrillation in a multicentre observational cohort study. Evaluation of the questionnaire included an assessment of internal consistency as well as factor analysis. Criterion-related external validity was assessed by comparing the ABQ score with (1) the degree of self-reported adherence and (2) the time in therapeutic range which describes the anticoagulation quality achieved by patients treated with oral anticoagulation.

resultsThe final 14-item ABQ scale demonstrated high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.820). Factor analysis identified a three-factor solution, representing intentional adherence barriers with 5 items (31.9% of the variance), medication-/health care system-related adherence barriers with 5 items (13.3% of the variance) and unintentional adherence barriers with 4 items (7.7% of the variance). The ABQ correlated significantly with self-reported non-adherence (Spearman's rho = 0.438, p < 0.001) as well as time in therapeutic range (Spearman's rho = - 0.161, p < 0.010). Patients with above-average ABQ scores (increased number and/or strength of existing adherence barriers) were significantly (p < 0.005, Pearson Chi-Square) more likely to have a poor anticoagulation quality (TTR < 60%) than patients with a lower ABQ score (44.6% versus 27.3%).

conclusionsThe ABQ is a practicable, reliable and valid instrument for identifying patient-specific barriers to medication-related adherence. Future research is required to examine the ability of the ABQ to identify patient perception/behaviour changes over time which may be important for the measurement of success of adherence interventions.

Indexed as

Drug MonitoringAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAnticoagulantsAtrial FibrillationChronic DiseaseCohort StudiesFactor Analysis, StatisticalFemaleGermanyHumansMaleMedication AdherenceMiddle AgedObservational Studies as TopicAnticoagulants

Identifiers

PMID25884193
PMCPMC4422301

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.