Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35592773›Full record

ArticlePatient preference and adherence2022

Finalization and Validation of Questionnaire and Algorithm of SPUR, a New Adherence Profiling Tool.

Elodie de Bock, Kevin Dolgin, Léa Kombargi, Benoit Arnould, Tanguy Vilcot, Guillaume Hubert, Marie-Eve Laporte, Lydiane Nabec, Gérard Reach

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

9 authors.

Elodie de BockPatient Centred Outcomes, ICON plc, Lyon, France.
Kevin DolginObservia, Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0002-4818-8415
Léa KombargiObservia, Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0001-6813-9701
Benoit ArnouldPatient Centred Outcomes, ICON plc, Lyon, France.
Tanguy VilcotPatient Centred Outcomes, ICON plc, Lyon, France.
Guillaume HubertObservia, Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0002-1842-5440
Marie-Eve LaporteIAE Paris - Sorbonne Business School, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0001-8801-2257
Lydiane NabecUniversité Paris-Saclay, RITM (Réseaux, Innovation, Territoire et Mondialisation), Paris, France.
Gérard ReachHealth Education and Practices Laboratory (LEPS), Sorbonne Paris-Nord University, Bobigny, France.ORCID 0000-0001-6995-2665

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: The SPUR (Social, Psychological, Usage and Rational) Adherence Profiling Tool is a recently developed adaptive instrument for assessing key patient-level drivers for non-adherence. This study describes the SPUR questionnaire's finalization and psychometric evaluation. Patients and Methods: Data were collected through an online survey among patients with type 2 diabetes included by general practitioners and diabetologists in France. The survey included four questionnaires, SPUR and three validated adherence measures: BMQ, MARS and ACCEPT. Item-level analysis and a partial credit model (PCM) were performed to refine the response option coding of SPUR items. The final item selection of SPUR was defined using a PCM and a principal component analysis (PCA). Construct validity, concurrent validity and known-groups validity were assessed on the final SPUR questionnaire. Results: A total of 245 patients (55% men, mean age of 63 years) completed the survey remotely and were included in this analysis. Refining response option coding allowed a better discrimination of patients on the latent trait. After item selection, a short, an intermediate, and a long form composed the final SPUR questionnaire. The short form will be used to screen patients for risk and then the other forms will allow the collection of further information to refine the risk assessment and decide the best levers for action. Results obtained were supportive of the construct validity of the forms. Their concurrent validity was demonstrated: moderate to high significant correlations were obtained with BMQ, MARS and ACCEPT scores. Their known-groups validity were shown with a logical pattern of higher scores obtained for patients considered non-adherent and significant differences between the scores obtained for patients considered adherent versus non-adherent. Conclusion: SPUR is a valid tool to evaluate the risk of non-adherence of patients, allowing effective intervention by providing insights into the respective individual reasons for lack of adherence.

Indexed as

digital questionnairenon-adherence driverspsychometric validationRasch modelling

Identifiers

PMID35592773
PMCPMC9112797

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.