Patient-reported outcome measures to detect intentional, mixed, or unintentional non-adherence to medication: a systematic review

Objective To categorise patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) into their propensity to detect intentional and/or unintentional non-adherence to medication, and synthesise their psychometric properties. Design Systematic review and regression analysis. Eligibility Medication adherence levels stud...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:BMJ Open
Main Author: Fahrni M.L.; Saman K.M.; Alkhoshaiban A.S.; Naimat F.; Ramzan F.; Isa K.A.M.
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMJ Publishing Group 2022
Online Access:https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85138198443&doi=10.1136%2fbmjopen-2021-057868&partnerID=40&md5=b926b8e752f41a1262a2fae7848e249b
id 2-s2.0-85138198443
spelling 2-s2.0-85138198443
Fahrni M.L.; Saman K.M.; Alkhoshaiban A.S.; Naimat F.; Ramzan F.; Isa K.A.M.
Patient-reported outcome measures to detect intentional, mixed, or unintentional non-adherence to medication: a systematic review
2022
BMJ Open
12
9
10.1136/bmjopen-2021-057868
https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85138198443&doi=10.1136%2fbmjopen-2021-057868&partnerID=40&md5=b926b8e752f41a1262a2fae7848e249b
Objective To categorise patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) into their propensity to detect intentional and/or unintentional non-adherence to medication, and synthesise their psychometric properties. Design Systematic review and regression analysis. Eligibility Medication adherence levels studied at primary, secondary and tertiary care settings. Self-reported measures with scoring methods were included. Studies without proxy measures were excluded. Data sources Using detailed searches with key concepts including questionnaires, reliability and validity, and restricted to English, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and Cochrane Library were searched until 01 March 2022. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 (PRISMA-2020) checklist was used. Data analysis Risk of bias was assessed via COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN-2018) guidelines. Narrative synthesis aided by graphical figures and statistical analyses. Outcome measures Process domains [behaviour (e.g., self-efficacy), barrier (e.g., impaired dexterity) or belief (e.g., perception)], and overall outcome domains of either intentional (I), unintentional (UI), or mixed non-adherence. Results Paper summarises evidence from 59 studies of PROMs, validated among patients aged 18-88 years in America, the United Kingdom, Europe, Middle East, and Australasia. PROMs detected outcome domains: intentional non-adherence, n=44 (I=491 criterion items), mixed intentionality, n=13 (I=79/UI=50), and unintentional, n=2 (UI=5). Process domains detected include belief (383 criterion items), barrier (192) and behaviour (165). Criterion validity assessment used proxy measures (biomarkers, e-monitors), and scoring was ordinal, dichotomised, or used Visual Analogue Scale. Heterogeneity was revealed across psychometric properties (consistency, construct, reliability, discrimination ability). Intentionality correlated positively with negative beliefs (r(57)=0.88) and barriers (r(57)=0.59). For every belief or barrier criterion-item, PROMs' aptitude to detect intentional non-adherence increased by β=0.79 and β=0.34 units, respectively (R 2 =0.94). Primary care versus specialised care predicted intentional non-adherence (OR 1.9; CI 1.01 to 2.66). Conclusions Ten PROMs had adequate psychometric properties. Of the ten, eight PROMs were able to detect total, and two PROMs were able to detect partial intentionality to medication default. Fortification of patients' knowledge and illness perception, as opposed to daily reminders alone, is most imperative at primary care levels. ©
BMJ Publishing Group
20446055
English
Article
All Open Access; Gold Open Access
author Fahrni M.L.; Saman K.M.; Alkhoshaiban A.S.; Naimat F.; Ramzan F.; Isa K.A.M.
spellingShingle Fahrni M.L.; Saman K.M.; Alkhoshaiban A.S.; Naimat F.; Ramzan F.; Isa K.A.M.
Patient-reported outcome measures to detect intentional, mixed, or unintentional non-adherence to medication: a systematic review
author_facet Fahrni M.L.; Saman K.M.; Alkhoshaiban A.S.; Naimat F.; Ramzan F.; Isa K.A.M.
author_sort Fahrni M.L.; Saman K.M.; Alkhoshaiban A.S.; Naimat F.; Ramzan F.; Isa K.A.M.
title Patient-reported outcome measures to detect intentional, mixed, or unintentional non-adherence to medication: a systematic review
title_short Patient-reported outcome measures to detect intentional, mixed, or unintentional non-adherence to medication: a systematic review
title_full Patient-reported outcome measures to detect intentional, mixed, or unintentional non-adherence to medication: a systematic review
title_fullStr Patient-reported outcome measures to detect intentional, mixed, or unintentional non-adherence to medication: a systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Patient-reported outcome measures to detect intentional, mixed, or unintentional non-adherence to medication: a systematic review
title_sort Patient-reported outcome measures to detect intentional, mixed, or unintentional non-adherence to medication: a systematic review
publishDate 2022
container_title BMJ Open
container_volume 12
container_issue 9
doi_str_mv 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-057868
url https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85138198443&doi=10.1136%2fbmjopen-2021-057868&partnerID=40&md5=b926b8e752f41a1262a2fae7848e249b
description Objective To categorise patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) into their propensity to detect intentional and/or unintentional non-adherence to medication, and synthesise their psychometric properties. Design Systematic review and regression analysis. Eligibility Medication adherence levels studied at primary, secondary and tertiary care settings. Self-reported measures with scoring methods were included. Studies without proxy measures were excluded. Data sources Using detailed searches with key concepts including questionnaires, reliability and validity, and restricted to English, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and Cochrane Library were searched until 01 March 2022. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 (PRISMA-2020) checklist was used. Data analysis Risk of bias was assessed via COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN-2018) guidelines. Narrative synthesis aided by graphical figures and statistical analyses. Outcome measures Process domains [behaviour (e.g., self-efficacy), barrier (e.g., impaired dexterity) or belief (e.g., perception)], and overall outcome domains of either intentional (I), unintentional (UI), or mixed non-adherence. Results Paper summarises evidence from 59 studies of PROMs, validated among patients aged 18-88 years in America, the United Kingdom, Europe, Middle East, and Australasia. PROMs detected outcome domains: intentional non-adherence, n=44 (I=491 criterion items), mixed intentionality, n=13 (I=79/UI=50), and unintentional, n=2 (UI=5). Process domains detected include belief (383 criterion items), barrier (192) and behaviour (165). Criterion validity assessment used proxy measures (biomarkers, e-monitors), and scoring was ordinal, dichotomised, or used Visual Analogue Scale. Heterogeneity was revealed across psychometric properties (consistency, construct, reliability, discrimination ability). Intentionality correlated positively with negative beliefs (r(57)=0.88) and barriers (r(57)=0.59). For every belief or barrier criterion-item, PROMs' aptitude to detect intentional non-adherence increased by β=0.79 and β=0.34 units, respectively (R 2 =0.94). Primary care versus specialised care predicted intentional non-adherence (OR 1.9; CI 1.01 to 2.66). Conclusions Ten PROMs had adequate psychometric properties. Of the ten, eight PROMs were able to detect total, and two PROMs were able to detect partial intentionality to medication default. Fortification of patients' knowledge and illness perception, as opposed to daily reminders alone, is most imperative at primary care levels. ©
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
issn 20446055
language English
format Article
accesstype All Open Access; Gold Open Access
record_format scopus
collection Scopus
_version_ 1809677890798747648