Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37897150›Full record

ArticlePharmacology research & perspectives2023

Validity, sensitivity and specificity of a measure of medication adherence instrument among patients taking oral anticoagulants.

Mariana Dolce Marques, Rafaela Batista Dos Santos Pedrosa, Henrique Ceretta Oliveira, Maria Cecília Bueno Jayme Gallani, Roberta Cunha Matheus Rodrigues

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pharmacology research & perspectives, 2023. 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
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Mariana Dolce MarquesSchool of Nursing, University of Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0003-4511-1540
Rafaela Batista Dos Santos PedrosaSchool of Nursing, University of Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0003-2918-9778
Henrique Ceretta OliveiraSchool of Nursing, University of Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-8190-0718
Maria Cecília Bueno Jayme GallaniSciences infirmières, Université Laval, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-3418-9134
Roberta Cunha Matheus RodriguesSchool of Nursing, University of Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-0881-0337
Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP) · BRUniversité Laval · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although self-report instruments are currently considered a valuable tool for measuring adherence, due to their low cost and ease of implementation, there are still important factors that impact measurement accuracy, such as social desirability and memory bias. Thus, the Global Assessment of Medication Adherence Instrument (GEMA) was developed to provide an accurate measure of this construct. The aim of this study was to evaluate the properties of the measurement of the Global Evaluation of Medication Adherence Instrument (GEMA) among patients with chronic diseases. A methodological study was conducted in the public hospital of the state of São Paulo, Brazil. The adherence to anticoagulants as well as the international normalized ratio (INR) was assessed on 127 patients. Besides GEMA, two other instruments were used to assess adherence: the Morisky Medication Adherence Scale-8 (MMAS-8) and the Measurement of Adhesion to Treatments (MAT). The GEMA presented a satisfactory level of specificity (0.76) to identify adherents among those with a stable INR, low sensitivity (0.43) for the identification of non-adherents among those with an unstable INR, and a Positive Predictive Value of 0.70. Positive and weak to moderate correlations were observed between the proportion of doses assessed with GEMA and the scores on the MMAS-8 (r = .26 and r = .22, respectively) and the MAT (r = .22 and r = .30, respectively). The GEMA presented good practicality, acceptability, and evidence of specificity regarding the stability of the INR. The validity of the construct was partially supported by the relationship with self-reported measures of adherence.

Indexed as

AnticoagulantsMedication AdherenceBrazilHumansPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsAnticoagulantsanticoagulantsmedication adherencenursingself-carevalidity

Identifiers

PMID37897150
PMCPMC10611946
OpenAlexW4387996961

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.