Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41783118›Full record

ArticlePatient preference and adherence2026

Comparing a Conceptual Framework and Factor Analysis to Achieve Survey Item Reduction in Predicting Medication Non-Persistence.

Chidimma F Umeaghadi, Jeff G Taylor, Shenzhen Yao, David F Blackburn

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Chidimma F UmeaghadiCollege of Pharmacy and Nutrition, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-2298-9000
Jeff G TaylorCollege of Pharmacy and Nutrition, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-3364-4091
Shenzhen YaoPublic Health Surveillance Unit, Vancouver Coastal Health Authority, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-7631-3404
David F BlackburnCollege of Pharmacy and Nutrition, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-7831-5913

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Adherence surveys can be lengthy due to the high number of potential risk factors to be analyzed. As a result, researchers often reduce items into conceptual domains (eg, beliefs, economic factors) to overcome power constraints or focus testing on a specific theme. However, item reduction can also be guided by factor analysis (FA), a process that identifies domains without regard to conceptual frameworks. Although both approaches achieve the same objective, their outputs can be drastically different. It was unclear how the process used to create domains could impact downstream performance of an adherence prediction model. We compared two logistic regression models on the outcome of non-persistence from the same survey data; variables for the models were reduced using a conceptual approach or factor analysis (FA). Both approaches identified three domains from 51 survey items. While domains from the conceptual approach were based on the WHO framework, items contained in FA-guided domains crossed conceptual boundaries. Both models demonstrated good predictive performance with c-statistics of 0.84 (subjective model) and 0.82 (FA model) (p=0.060). The conceptual approach organizes data in a highly relevant structure that aligns with contemporary research and can more readily impact future practice. We found no evidence for a trade-off with respect to model prediction performance.

Indexed as

assessment of medication adherenceepidemiologic research designfactor analysis statisticalmedication adherencesurveys and questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID41783118
PMCPMC12955365

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.