ArticlePatient preference and adherence2020
Comparison of Different Adherence Measures in Adolescent Outpatients with Depressive Disorder.
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAdolescent depression can have a chronic course; hence, the importance of adherence to antidepressant medication for successful treatment outcomes is emphasized. This study aimed to examine different adherence measures and identify clinical factors that influence adherence in adolescent depression. PATIENTS AND
methodsA prospective study was conducted for patients diagnosed with depressive disorder according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder, Fourth Edition from outpatient psychiatric settings at Korea University Medical Center, Guro Hospital. Patient demographics were obtained from a questionnaire, interview, and review of chart records. Adherence was assessed by four methods (Medication Event Monitoring System [MEMS], pill count, clinical rating scale, and patient's self-report). The Toronto Side Effect Scale was used to evaluate side effects, and specific depressive symptoms were assessed using the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression and Childhood Depression Inventory-Korean version. The Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support was administered to analyze social support, and the Parenting Stress Index-Short Form was used to evaluate parental stress levels. We used concordance correlation analysis to evaluate the relationship among the four adherence measures and the relationship between adherence level and clinical factors.
resultsOverall, the study enrolled 48 outpatients (mean age 16.33±1.93 years). The mean duration of illness was 1.27±2.17 years. Adherence rates for MEMS, clinician rating scale, pill count, and self-report after conversion to dichotomous measures were 67.5%, 48.9%, 60.0%, and 56.3%, respectively. Only the duration of illness remained significantly correlated with MEMS (r = 0.510, p =0.001).
conclusionPill count exhibited a higher degree of agreement with MEMS adherence than the other two adherence measures, possibly indicating that pill count may be a considerably reliable measure of adherence. Furthermore, MEMS adherence was positively correlated with disease duration, suggesting that the longer the duration of illness, the higher the adherence.
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.