Observational studyEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2020
Validation of self-reported adherence in chronic patients visiting pharmacies and factors associated with the overestimation and underestimation of good adherence.
Observational study in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Recommendations for Defining and Reporting Adherence Measured by Biometric Monitoring Technologies: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Pooled it
- Medication adherence scales in non-communicable diseases: A scoping review of design gaps, constructs and validation processes.PloS one · 2025Article
- Assessing treatment adherence is crucial to determine adequacy of mineralocorticoid therapy.Endocrine connections · 2023Article
- Assessment of medication adherence in children and adults with congenital adrenal hyperplasia and the impact of knowledge and self-management.Clinical endocrinology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStudies validating indirect methods to identify nonadherence in chronic patients who visit pharmacies are lacking. The aim of this study was to validate self-reported adherence and assess the variables associated with both overestimation and underestimation of good adherence when using this method. MATERIALS AND
methodsAn observational, cross-sectional study was undertaken to validate self-reported adherence in 132 community pharmacies throughout Spain in 6237 chronic patients. The Morisky-Green test was used as the validation method and through a 2 × 2 table, the validity indicators, predictive values, and likelihood ratios were calculated. To assess the variables associated with both overestimation and underestimation of good adherence, multivariate logistic regression analysis and calculation of the area under the ROC curve were used to evaluate discriminatory capacity.
resultsSensitivity was 27.8% (95% CI: 26.2-29.4) and specificity was 93.9% (95% CI: 93.1-94.7). Discrepancy analysis obtained a significant overestimation of good adherence (p < 0.001). The factors associated with overestimating good adherence were performing a mnemonic trick (p < 0.001), not self-medicating (p < 0.001), a high level of physical activity (p < 0.001), and an older age (p = 0.014). Factors associated with underestimation were self-medication (p < 0.001), desiring more information (p < 0.001), smoking (p = 0.014), not engaging in physical activity in the low (p = 0.006) or high (p < 0.001) categories, having a younger mean age (p = 0.007), and taking two to three (p = 0.029) or four or more (p < 0.001) chronic treatments.
conclusionSelf-reported adherence has good specificity but poor sensitivity. The associated profiles of the discrepancies were obtained to identify both good and poor 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.