Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27831521›Full record

Observational studyThe Diabetes educator2017

Evaluating the Validity and Reliability of the Beliefs About Medicines Questionnaire in Low-Income, Spanish-Speaking Patients With Diabetes in the United States.

Krystal Jimenez, Cristina Vargas, Karla Garcia, Herlinda Guzman, Marco Angulo, John Billimek

Abstract readObservational StudyValidation Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in The Diabetes educator, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

6 authors.

Krystal JimenezHealth Policy Research Institute, University of California, Irvine (Ms Jimenez, Ms Vargas, Ms Garcia, Ms Guzman, Dr Billimek).
Cristina VargasHealth Policy Research Institute, University of California, Irvine (Ms Jimenez, Ms Vargas, Ms Garcia, Ms Guzman, Dr Billimek).
Karla GarciaHealth Policy Research Institute, University of California, Irvine (Ms Jimenez, Ms Vargas, Ms Garcia, Ms Guzman, Dr Billimek).
Herlinda GuzmanHealth Policy Research Institute, University of California, Irvine (Ms Jimenez, Ms Vargas, Ms Garcia, Ms Guzman, Dr Billimek).
Marco AnguloDepartment of Family Medicine, School of Medicine, University of California, Irvine (Dr Angulo, Dr Billimek).
John BillimekHealth Policy Research Institute, University of California, Irvine (Ms Jimenez, Ms Vargas, Ms Garcia, Ms Guzman, Dr Billimek).

Funding

University of California Health Participation in the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C)UL1TR001414 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE · PI COOPER, DAN M, VILAIN, ERIC J. · 2015 to 2023
$35.1M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001414
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this study was to examine the reliability and validity of a Spanish version of the Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire (BMQ) as a measure to evaluate beliefs about medications and to differentiate adherent from nonadherent patients among low-income Latino patients with diabetes in the United States. Methods Seventy-three patients were administered the BMQ and surveyed for evidence of medication nonadherence. Internal consistency of the BMQ was assessed by Cronbach's alpha along with performing a confirmatory factor analysis. Criterion validity was assessed by comparing mean scores on 3 subscales of the BMQ (General Overuse, General Harm, and Specific Necessity-Concerns difference score) between adherent patients and patients reporting nonadherence for 3 different reasons (unintentional nonadherence, cost-related nonadherence, and nonadherence due to reasons other than cost) using independent samples t tests. Results The BMQ is a reliable instrument to examine beliefs about medications in this Spanish-speaking population. Construct validity testing shows nearly identical factor loading as the original construct map. General Overuse scores were significantly more negative for patients reporting each reason for nonadherence compared with their adherent counterparts. Necessity-Concerns difference scores were significantly more negative for patients reporting nonadherence for reasons other than cost compared with those who did not report this reason for nonadherence. Conclusion The Spanish version of the BMQ is appropriate to assess beliefs about medications in Latino patients with type 2 diabetes in the United States and may help identify patients who become nonadherent to medications for reasons other than out-of-pocket costs.

Indexed as

AdultCross-Sectional StudiesCultureDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2FemaleHispanic or LatinoHumansLanguageMaleMedication AdherenceMiddle AgedPovertyReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesTranslationsUnited States

Identifiers

PMID27831521
PMCPMC5899517

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.