ArticleDiabetes, obesity & metabolism2025
Psychometric evaluation of the Adelphi Adherence Questionnaire (ADAQ©) in a type 2 diabetes mellitus population as a new measure of adherence and the complex factors influencing adherence in routine care.
Article in Diabetes, obesity & metabolism, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsTo evaluate the psychometric properties of the Adelphi Adherence Questionnaire (ADAQ©) as an adherence measure in a diverse type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) population in routine clinical practice. MATERIALS AND
methodsData were drawn from the Adelphi T2DM Disease Specific Programme™, a survey of physicians and adults with T2DM consulting in the United States, February-May 2021. Participants completed the ADAQ and single questions on medication satisfaction and convenience. Latent variable modelling (exploratory/confirmatory factor analyses, item response theory, Mokken scaling and bifactor analyses) assessed ADAQ dimensionality and composite scoring. Differential item functioning (DIF) analyses were conducted between participants taking injectable and non-injectable therapies, and with <3 or ≥3 long-term conditions. Correlational analyses with physician-reported adherence and compliance, and patient-reported treatment satisfaction, convenience and side-effects assessed construct validity. ADAQ scores by sociodemographic and clinical factors were also described.
resultsOverall, 1287 people with T2DM were included in this analysis (mean age 56.7 years [standard deviation: 12.8], 54.5% [n = 702] male). Latent variable modelling indicated a unidimensional reflective model fit, with a bifactor model confirming an 11-question essentially unidimensional composite score. Negligible DIF was found between groups. Cronbach's alpha and McDonald's omega were both ≥0.90. Moderate correlations with physician-reported adherence and compliance, and patient-reported medication convenience and satisfaction support construct validity.
conclusionsThe ADAQ shows strong construct validity and high internal consistency reliability within a heterogenous T2DM population with negligible DIF between sub-groups. Future work should focus on test-retest reliability and detecting change over time.
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.