ArticlePatient preference and adherence2020
Using a Self-Administered Electronic Adherence Questionnaire to Identify Poor Adherence Amongst Adolescents and Young Adults on First-Line Antiretroviral Therapy in Johannesburg, South Africa.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Association between Childhood Trauma, Mental Health Symptoms and Adherence Among Youth Living with HIV in Botswana.Journal of child & adolescent trauma · 2024Article
- Measuring patient engagement with HIV care in sub-Saharan Africa: a scoping study.Journal of the International AIDS Society · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe best method to measure adherence to antiretroviral therapy (ART) in resource-limited settings has not yet been established, particularly among adolescents and young adults (AYAs). The use of mobile technology may address the need for standardized tools in measuring adherence in this often marginalized population.
methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional validation study among AYAs (18-35 years) attending a South African HIV clinic between 07/2015-09/2017. We determine the diagnostic accuracy of two modes of delivering an adherence questionnaire (self-administered electronic vs interviewer-administered paper-adherence questionnaire) comprising two self-reported adherence tools (South African National Department of Health (NDoH) adherence questionnaire and the Simplified Medication Adherence Questionnaire (SMAQ)) to identify poor adherence compared to; 1) a detectable viral load (≥1000 copies/mL) and 2) a sub-optimal concentration of efavirenz (EFV) (EFV ≤1.00 µg/mL) measured by therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM).
resultsOf 278 included participants, 7.1% and 7.3% completing the electronic- and paper-questionnaires had a detectable viral load, while 14.7% and 16.5% had a sub-optimal concentration of EFV, respectively. According to viral load monitoring, the electronic-adherence questionnaire had a higher sensitivity (Se) in detecting poor adherence than the paper-based version across the NDoH adherence questionnaire (Se: 63.6% vs 33.3%) and SMAQ (Se: 90.9% vs 66.7%). In contrast, when using blood drug concentration (EFV ≤1.00 µg/mL), the paper-adherence questionnaire produced a higher sensitivity across both adherence tools; namely the NDoH adherence questionnaire (Se: 50.0% vs 38.1%) and SMAQ (Se: 75.0% vs 57.1%).
conclusionWhen using more accurate real-time measures of poor adherence such as TDM in this young adult population, we observe a higher sensitivity of an interviewer-administered paper-adherence questionnaire than an identical set of self-administered adherence questions on an electronic tablet. An interviewer-administered questionnaire may elicit more accurate responses from participants through a sense of increased accountability when engaging with health care workers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.