Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Validation of a New Three-Item Self-Report Measure for Medication Adherence

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
AIDS and Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Few self-report measures of medication adherence have been rigorously developed and validated against electronic drug monitoring (EDM). Assess the validity of the 3-item self-report scale by comparing it with a contemporaneous EDM measure. We conducted an observational study in which adherence assessments were done monthly for up to 4 months for 81 patients with HIV who were taking antiretroviral medications. We report results for both HIV antiretroviral medications, and also for other, non-HIV-related medications. Raw and calibrated self-report adherence measures, electronic drug monitoring adherence measures, and sociodemographic variables. The mean age of patients was 46 years, 37 % were female, 49 % had some education beyond high school, 22 % were Black, and 22 % were Hispanic. Cronbach’s alphas for the 3-item scale for HIV and non-HIV medications were 0.83 and 0.87, respectively. The mean differences (raw/uncalibrated self-report scale minus EDM) for HIV and non-HIV medications were 7.5 and 5.2 points on a 100-point scale (p < 0.05 for both). Pearson correlation coefficients between the calibrated 3-item scale and the EDM for HIV and non-HIV medications were 0.47 and 0.59, respectively. The c-statistics for the ROC curves for the calibrated scale, using cut-offs of 0.8 and 0.9 for the EDM gold standard measure to define non-adherence, were between 0.74 and 0.76 for HIV and non-HIV medications. This 3-item adherence self-report scale showed good psychometric characteristics and good construct validity when compared with an EDM standard, for both HIV and non-HIV medications. In clinical care it can be a useful first-stage screener for non-adherence. In clinical research and quality improvement settings it can be a useful tool when more complex and expensive methods such as EDM or pharmacy claims are impractical or unavailable.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Rand CS. “I took the medicine like you told me, Doctor”: self-reports of adherence with medical regimens. In: Stone AA, Turkkan JS, Bachrach CA, Jobe JB, Kurtzman HS, Cain VS, editors. The science of self-report: implications for research and practice, vol. 1. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2000. p. 257–76.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Osterberg L, Blaschke T. Adherence to medication. N Engl J Med. 2005;353(5):487–97.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Steiner JF, Prochazka AV. The assessment of refill compliance using pharmacy records: methods, validity, and applications. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50(1):105–16.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Demonceau J, Ruppar T, Kristanto P, et al. Identification and assessment of adherence-enhancing interventions in studies assessing medication adherence through electronically compiled drug dosing histories: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Drugs. 2013;73(6):545–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Kalichman SC, Amaral CM, Cherry C, et al. Monitoring medication adherence by unannounced pill counts conducted by telephone: reliability and criterion-related validity. HIV Clin Trials. 2008;9(5):298–308.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Wilson IB, Fowler FJ Jr, Cosenza CA, et al. Cognitive and field testing of a new set of medication adherence self-report items for HIV care. AIDS Behav. 2013;18(12):2349–58.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Fowler FJ, Lloyd SJ, Cosenza CA, Wilson IB. Coding cognitive interviews: an approach to enhancing the value of cognitive testing for survey question evaluation. Field Methods 2014;1525822X14549921.

  8. Morisky DE, Green LW, Levine DM. Concurrent and predictive validity of a self-reported measure of medication adherence. Med Care. 1986;24(1):67–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Williams JB. Validation and utility of a self-report version of PRIME-MD: the PHQ primary care study. Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders. Patient Health Questionnaire. JAMA. 1999;282(18):1737–44.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Saunders JB, Aasland OG, Babor TF, De la Fuente JR, Grant M. Development of the alcohol use disorders identification test (AUDIT): WHO collaborative project on early detection of persons with harmful alcohol consumption-II. Addiction. 1993;88(6):791–804.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Pence BW, Gaynes BN, Whetten K, Eron JJ Jr, Ryder RW, Miller WC. Validation of a brief screening instrument for substance abuse and mental illness in HIV-positive patients. J Acquir Immun Defic Syndr. 2005;40(4):434–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Genberg BL, Wilson IB, Bangsberg DR, et al. Patterns of antiretroviral therapy adherence and impact on HIV RNA among patients in North America. AIDS. 2012;26(11):1415–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Genberg BL, Lee Y, Rogers WH, Willey C, Wilson IB. Stages of change for adherence to antiretroviral medications. AIDS Patient Care STDS. 2013;27(10):567–72.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Genberg BL, Lee Y, Rogers WH, Wilson IB. Four types of barriers to adherence of antiretroviral therapy are associated with decreased adherence over time. AIDS Behav. 2015;19(1):85–92.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Gaito J. Measurement scales and statistics: resurgence of an old misconception. Psychol Bull. 1980;87(3):564–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Townsend JT, Hu GG, Evans RJ. Modeling feature perception in brief displays with evidence for positive interdependencies. Percept Psychophys. 1984;36(1):35–49.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.; 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Thirumurthy H, Siripong N, Vreeman RC, et al. Differences between self-reported and electronically monitored adherence among patients receiving antiretroviral therapy in a resource-limited setting. AIDS. 2012;26(18):2399–403.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Shi LZ, Liu JN, Koleva Y, Fonseca V, Kalsekar A, Pawaskar M. Concordance of adherence measurement using self-reported adherence questionnaires and medication monitoring devices. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(12):1097–107.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Shi L, Liu J, Fonseca V, Walker P, Kalsekar A, Pawaskar M. Correlation between adherence rates measured by MEMS and self-reported questionnaires: a meta-analysis. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010;8(1):99.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Amico KR, Marcus JL, McMahan V, et al. Study product adherence measurement in the iPrEx placebo-controlled trial: concordance with drug detection. J Acquir Immun Defic Syndr. 2014;66(5):530–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Wilson IB, Carter AE, Berg KM. Improving the self-report of HIV antiretroviral medication adherence: is the glass half full or half empty? CurrHIV/AIDS Rep. 2009;6(4):177–86.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Blair E, Burton S. Cognitive-processes used by survey respondents to answer behavioral frequency questions. J Consum Res. 1987;14(2):280–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Menon G. The effects of accessibility of information in memory on judgments of behavioral frequencies. J Consum Res. 1993;20(3):431–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Harrell FE, Lee KL, Mark DB. Tutorial in biostatistics multivariable prognostic models: issues in developing models, evaluating assumptions and adequacy, and measuring and reducing errors. Stat Med. 1996;15:361–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Wendel CS, Mohler MJ, Kroesen K, Ampel NM, Gifford AL, Coons SJ. Barriers to use of electronic adherence monitoring in an HIV clinic. Ann Pharmacother. 2001;35(9):1010–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Wilson IB, Tchetgen E, Spiegelman D. Patterns of adherence with antiretroviral medications: an examination of between-medication differences. J Acquir Immun Defic Syndr. 2001;28(3):259–63.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. McNabb JJ, Nicolau DP, Stoner JA, Ross J. Patterns of adherence to antiretroviral medications: the value of electronic monitoring. AIDS. 2003;17(12):1763–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Gardner EM, Burman WJ, Maravi ME, Davidson AJ. Selective drug taking during combination antiretroviral therapy in an unselected clinic population. J Acquir Immun Defic Syndr. 2005;40(3):294–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Deschamps AE, De Geest S, Vandamme AM, Bobbaers H, Peetermans WE, van Wijngaerden E. Diagnostic value of different adherence measures using electronic monitoring and virologic failure as reference standards. AIDS Patient Care STDS. 2008;22(9):735–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Osterberg L, Urquhart J, Blaschke T. Understanding forgiveness: minding and mining the gaps between pharmacokinetics and therapeutics. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2010;88(4):457–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Gulick RM. Adherence to antiretroviral therapy: how much is enough? Clin Infect Dis. 2006;43(7):943–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Kravitz RL, Melnikow J. Medical adherence research: time for a change in direction? Med Care. 2004;42(3):197–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ira B. Wilson.

Ethics declarations

Funding

This work was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health at the National Institutes of Health (Grant No. RO1 MH 092238). Dr. Wilson was also supported by a K24 Grant (2K24MH092242).

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

This work was presented in abstract form at the Pittsburgh Conference on the Science of Medication Adherence, Pittsburgh, PA. June 2, 2015.

Appendices

Appendix 1

In the last 30 days, on how many days did you miss at least one dose of any of your [drug name]?

Write in number of days: ____ (0–30)

In the last 30 days, how good a job did you do at taking your [drug name] in the way you were supposed to?

  • □ Very poor

  • □ Poor

  • □ Fair

  • □ Good

  • □ Very good

  • □ Excellent

In the last 30 days, how often did you take your [drug name] in the way you were supposed to?

  • □ Never

  • □ Rarely

  • □ Sometimes

  • □ Usually

  • □ Almost always

  • □ Always

Appendix 2

See Table 3.

Table 3 EDM values used to calibrate the self-report items

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wilson, I.B., Lee, Y., Michaud, J. et al. Validation of a New Three-Item Self-Report Measure for Medication Adherence. AIDS Behav 20, 2700–2708 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-016-1406-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-016-1406-x

Keywords

Navigation