Mayes College of Healthcare Business and Policy, University of the Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Syreon Research Institute, Budapest, Hungary.
Value Health. 2019 Feb;22(2):139-156. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2018.08.006. Epub 2018 Oct 25.
A broad literature base exists for measuring medication adherence to monotherapeutic regimens, but publications are less extensive for measuring adherence to multiple medications.
To identify and characterize the multiple medication adherence (MMA) methods used in the literature.
A literature search was conducted using PubMed, PsycINFO, the International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and the Cochrane Library databases on methods used to measure MMA published between January 1973 and May 2015. A two-step screening process was used; all abstracts were screened by pairs of researchers independently, followed by a full-text review identifying the method for calculating MMA. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed to conduct this systematic review. For studies that met the eligibility criteria, general study and adherence-specific characteristics and the number and type of MMA measurement methods were summarized.
The 147 studies that were included originated from 32 countries, in 13 disease states. Of these studies, 26 used proportion of days covered, 23 used medication possession ratio, and 72 used self-reported questionnaires (e.g., the Morisky Scale) to assess MMA. About 50% of the studies included more than one method for measuring MMA, and different variations of medication possession ratio and proportion of days covered were used for measuring MMA.
There appears to be no standardized method to measure MMA. With an increasing prevalence of polypharmacy, more efforts should be directed toward constructing robust measures suitable to evaluate adherence to complex regimens. Future research to understand the validity and reliability of MMA measures and their effects on objective clinical outcomes is also needed.
关于单药治疗方案的药物依从性测量,已有广泛的文献基础,但关于多种药物依从性的测量,文献则相对较少。
确定并描述文献中用于测量多种药物依从性的方法。
通过 PubMed、PsycINFO、国际药学文摘、护理学和联合健康文献累积索引以及 Cochrane 图书馆数据库,对 1973 年 1 月至 2015 年 5 月间发表的用于测量多种药物依从性的方法进行文献检索。采用两步筛选过程:由研究人员两两独立对所有摘要进行筛选,然后对全文进行审查,以确定计算多种药物依从性的方法。本系统评价遵循系统评价和荟萃分析的 Preferred Reporting Items 指南进行。对于符合入选标准的研究,总结了一般研究和依从性特异性特征以及多种药物依从性测量方法的数量和类型。
纳入的 147 项研究来源于 32 个国家的 13 种疾病状态。其中 26 项研究使用了覆盖天数比例,23 项研究使用了药物持有率,72 项研究使用了自我报告问卷(如 Morisky 量表)来评估多种药物依从性。约 50%的研究采用了一种以上的方法来测量多种药物依从性,并且对药物持有率和覆盖天数比例进行了不同的变化测量。
似乎没有标准化的方法来测量多种药物依从性。随着多药治疗的流行,应该投入更多的努力来构建适合评估复杂治疗方案依从性的可靠措施。还需要进一步研究来了解多种药物依从性测量方法的有效性和可靠性及其对客观临床结局的影响。