ArticlePatient preference and adherence2026
Comparison of Three Adherence Assessment Tools in Omani Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Single-Center Cross-Sectional Study of Agreement and Association with HbA1c.
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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Discrepancies in adherence classification across assessment tools pose a challenge in clinical practice. This study compared three medication adherence assessment tools-the 8-item Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS-8), the Single-Item Self-Adherence Assessment (SISA), and the Omani-validated Medication Adherence Universal Questionnaire (MAUQ-ar-OM)-with respect to their agreement, their association with glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), and their identification of behavioral and belief-related barriers in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Patients and Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted at the endocrinology clinic of a tertiary-care academic hospital in Oman, among Arabic-speaking Omani adults (≥18 years) with T2DM who were receiving oral hypoglycemic agents, either alone or in combination with insulin. Adherence was classified into three levels (high, moderate, and low). In a predefined subgroup of 98 participants, the MAUQ-ar-OM was used to identify adherence barriers across four domains: positive attitudes toward healthcare and medication, lack of discipline, aversion toward medication, and active coping with health problems. Results: A total of 233 patients were included, of whom 50.7% were female. The median age was 58 years and the median HbA1c was 8.8%. Adherence classification varied markedly across tools: high adherence was reported in 88.8% of patients by the SISA versus 46.6% by the MMAS-8. Agreement between MMAS-8 and SISA was slight-to-fair beyond chance (quadratic weighted Cohen's κ = 0.248; p<0.01). Lower MMAS-8 scores were associated with higher HbA1c values (p<0.01). Within the MAUQ-ar-OM, the lack-of-discipline domain emerged as a barrier most closely aligned with adherence behavior (p=0.237, p=0.019). Conclusion: In this cross -sectional study, MMAS-8 showed a stronger association with HbA1c and may help identify patients with poorer glycemic control, whereas SISA offered a rapid assessment but appeared to classify a higher proportion of patients as highly adherent. The MAUQ-ar-OM identified lack of discipline as a potentially modifiable adherence barrier. Because this was a cross-sectional study using self-reported measures, prospective studies incorporating objective adherence measures are needed before concluding that any single tool is superior. A combined approach that integrates a brief screening tool with a comprehensive assessment may warrant further evaluation to optimize diabetes care.
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.