ArticleJournal of behavioral medicine2024
The three-item patient-reported instrument for retrospective adherence in resource constrained settings: reliability, validity and potential utility.
Article in Journal of behavioral medicine, 2024. 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, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
introductionPatient-report instruments remain the most feasible and sustainable approaches for monitoring medication adherence in clinical settings. However, questions of their reliability and validity persist. Studies suggest that the 3-item instrument for retrospective adherence (IRA) developed by Wilson et al. offers a viable option for clinically monitoring medication adherence. Here we report the reliability and validity of the IRA among patients recruited from community-based HIV clinics and antiretroviral therapy (ART) dispensaries in a resource constrained township in Cape Town, South Africa.
methodsWomen (n = 794) and men (n = 228) receiving ART completed the IRA at three time points: (a) in a face-to-face administration at enrollment (b) in1-week phone interview and (c) 1-month phone interview. Participants also provided contemporaneous blood samples for HIV viral load testing as a clinical outcome and unannounced phone-based pill counts as an objective assessment of ART adherence.
resultsThe IRA was internally consistent and showed evidence of time stability. The IRA also demonstrated validity with respect to pill count adherence, correlates of adherence, and HIV viral load. Response operating curve analysis yielded an area under the curve of 0.646, using 75% adherence as the cut-off, with 0.637 sensitivity and 0.567 specificity.
conclusionsThe IRA demonstrated reliability, construct validity and criterion validity in a resource constrained setting, supporting use of the IRA in research and clinical care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.