Discrepancies between self-reported medication in adherence and indirect measurement adherence among patients undergoing antiretroviral therapy: a systematic review.

IF 8.1 1区 医学 Infectious Diseases of Poverty Pub Date : 2024-07-05 DOI:10.1186/s40249-024-01221-4
Rujun Liao, Zihuan Tang, Na Zhang, Lin Hu, Zongqi Chang, Jiayi Ren, Xuefei Bai, Jinhong Shi, Sisi Fan, Rong Pei, Liang Du, Tao Zhang
{"title":"Discrepancies between self-reported medication in adherence and indirect measurement adherence among patients undergoing antiretroviral therapy: a systematic review.","authors":"Rujun Liao, Zihuan Tang, Na Zhang, Lin Hu, Zongqi Chang, Jiayi Ren, Xuefei Bai, Jinhong Shi, Sisi Fan, Rong Pei, Liang Du, Tao Zhang","doi":"10.1186/s40249-024-01221-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Given the critical importance of medication adherence in HIV/AIDS treatment, this study aims to compare medication adherence measured by self-report (SR) and indirect measurement among antiretroviral therapy (ART) patients, exploring the differences of adherence results measured by different tools.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library to identify all relevant literature published up to November 22, 2023, without language restrictions, reporting adherence to ART measured by both SR and indirect measurement methods, while also analyzing individual and group adherence separately. Discrepancies between SR and indirect measurement results were assessed using the Mann-Whitney U test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test, with correlations evaluated using the Pearson correlation coefficient. Following one-to-one comparisons, meta-epidemiological one-step analysis was conducted, and network meta-analysis techniques were applied to compare results obtained through specific adherence assessment tools reported in the identified articles.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The analysis encompassed 65 original studies involving 13,667 HIV/AIDS patients, leading to 112 one-to-one comparisons between SR and indirect measurement tools. Statistically significant differences were observed between SR and indirect measurement tools regarding both individual and group adherence (P < 0.05), with Pearson correlation coefficients of 0.843 for individual adherence and 0.684 for group adherence. During meta-epidemiological one-step analysis, SR-measured adherence was determined to be 3.94% (95% CI: -4.48-13.44%) higher for individual adherence and 16.14% (95% CI: 0.81-18.84%) higher for group adherence compared to indirectly measured results. Subgroup analysis indicated that factors such as the year of reporting and geographic region appeared to influence the discrepancies between SR and indirect measurements. Furthermore, network meta-analysis revealed that for both individual and group adherence, the results obtained from most SR and indirect measurement tools were higher than those from electronic monitoring devices, with some demonstrating statistical significance (P < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The findings underscored the complexity of accurately measuring medication adherence among ART patients. Significant variability was observed across studies, with self-report methods showing a significant tendency towards overestimation. Year of reporting, geographic region, and adherence measurement tools appeared to influence the differences between SR and indirect measurements. Future research should focus on developing and validating integrated adherence measurements that can combine SR data with indirect measures to achieve a more comprehensive understanding of adherence behaviors.</p>","PeriodicalId":48820,"journal":{"name":"Infectious Diseases of Poverty","volume":"13 1","pages":"51"},"PeriodicalIF":8.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11225374/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Infectious Diseases of Poverty","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40249-024-01221-4","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Given the critical importance of medication adherence in HIV/AIDS treatment, this study aims to compare medication adherence measured by self-report (SR) and indirect measurement among antiretroviral therapy (ART) patients, exploring the differences of adherence results measured by different tools.

Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library to identify all relevant literature published up to November 22, 2023, without language restrictions, reporting adherence to ART measured by both SR and indirect measurement methods, while also analyzing individual and group adherence separately. Discrepancies between SR and indirect measurement results were assessed using the Mann-Whitney U test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test, with correlations evaluated using the Pearson correlation coefficient. Following one-to-one comparisons, meta-epidemiological one-step analysis was conducted, and network meta-analysis techniques were applied to compare results obtained through specific adherence assessment tools reported in the identified articles.

Results: The analysis encompassed 65 original studies involving 13,667 HIV/AIDS patients, leading to 112 one-to-one comparisons between SR and indirect measurement tools. Statistically significant differences were observed between SR and indirect measurement tools regarding both individual and group adherence (P < 0.05), with Pearson correlation coefficients of 0.843 for individual adherence and 0.684 for group adherence. During meta-epidemiological one-step analysis, SR-measured adherence was determined to be 3.94% (95% CI: -4.48-13.44%) higher for individual adherence and 16.14% (95% CI: 0.81-18.84%) higher for group adherence compared to indirectly measured results. Subgroup analysis indicated that factors such as the year of reporting and geographic region appeared to influence the discrepancies between SR and indirect measurements. Furthermore, network meta-analysis revealed that for both individual and group adherence, the results obtained from most SR and indirect measurement tools were higher than those from electronic monitoring devices, with some demonstrating statistical significance (P < 0.05).

Conclusions: The findings underscored the complexity of accurately measuring medication adherence among ART patients. Significant variability was observed across studies, with self-report methods showing a significant tendency towards overestimation. Year of reporting, geographic region, and adherence measurement tools appeared to influence the differences between SR and indirect measurements. Future research should focus on developing and validating integrated adherence measurements that can combine SR data with indirect measures to achieve a more comprehensive understanding of adherence behaviors.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
接受抗逆转录病毒治疗的患者自我报告的用药依从性与间接测量的依从性之间的差异:一项系统性综述。
背景:鉴于服药依从性在艾滋病治疗中至关重要,本研究旨在比较抗逆转录病毒疗法(ART)患者通过自我报告(SR)和间接测量测量的服药依从性,探讨不同工具测量的依从性结果的差异:我们对 PubMed、Embase 和 Cochrane 图书馆进行了系统检索,找出了截至 2023 年 11 月 22 日发表的所有相关文献,这些文献不受语言限制,报告了通过 SR 和间接测量方法测量的抗逆转录病毒疗法依从性,同时还分别分析了个体和群体的依从性。SR 和间接测量结果之间的差异采用 Mann-Whitney U 检验或 Wilcoxon 符号秩检验进行评估,相关性采用皮尔逊相关系数进行评估。在一对一比较后,进行了荟萃流行病学一步分析,并应用网络荟萃分析技术比较了已确定文章中报告的通过特定依从性评估工具获得的结果:分析包括 65 项原始研究,涉及 13,667 名艾滋病毒/艾滋病患者,从而对 SR 和间接测量工具进行了 112 次一对一比较。在个人和群体依从性方面,SR 和间接测量工具之间存在统计学意义上的重大差异(P 结论:SR 和间接测量工具之间存在统计学意义上的重大差异:研究结果凸显了准确测量抗逆转录病毒疗法患者服药依从性的复杂性。不同研究之间存在显著差异,自我报告法有明显的高估倾向。报告年份、地理区域和依从性测量工具似乎会影响自报和间接测量之间的差异。未来的研究应侧重于开发和验证综合依从性测量方法,将自报数据与间接测量方法结合起来,从而更全面地了解依从性行为。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Infectious Diseases of Poverty
Infectious Diseases of Poverty INFECTIOUS DISEASES-
自引率
1.20%
发文量
368
期刊介绍: Infectious Diseases of Poverty is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that focuses on addressing essential public health questions related to infectious diseases of poverty. The journal covers a wide range of topics including the biology of pathogens and vectors, diagnosis and detection, treatment and case management, epidemiology and modeling, zoonotic hosts and animal reservoirs, control strategies and implementation, new technologies and application. It also considers the transdisciplinary or multisectoral effects on health systems, ecohealth, environmental management, and innovative technology. The journal aims to identify and assess research and information gaps that hinder progress towards new interventions for public health problems in the developing world. Additionally, it provides a platform for discussing these issues to advance research and evidence building for improved public health interventions in poor settings.
期刊最新文献
Association between Loa loa microfilaremia and anatomical hyposplenia in a rural area of the Republic of Congo: a population-based cross-sectional study. Global progress, challenges and strategies in eliminating public threat of viral hepatitis. Environmental, socioeconomic, and sociocultural drivers of monkeypox transmission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo: a One Health perspective. Machine learning for predicting severe dengue in Puerto Rico. Post-COVID-19 resurgence of scabies' cases in the Lazio Region, Italy: a new emerging public health threat?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1