Development of a PATIENT-Medication Adherence Instrument

• Published in: PloS one 2020-11, Vol.15 (11), p.e0242051
• Main Authors: Goh, Sheron Sir Loon, Lai, Pauline Siew Mei, Liew, Su-May, Tan, Kit Mun, Chung, Wen Wei, Chua, Siew Siang
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Evaluation; Patient compliance; Psychological tests
• ISSN: 1932-6203; 1932-6203
• DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0242051

To date, several medication adherence instruments have been developed and validated worldwide. However, most instruments have only assessed medication adherence from the patient's perspective. The aim was to develop and validate the PATIENT-Medication Adherence Instrument (P-MAI) and the HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONAL-Medication Adherence Instrument (H-MAI) to assess medication adherence from the patient's and healthcare professional (HCP)'s perspectives. The P-MAI-12 and H-MAI-12 were developed using the nominal group technique. The face and content validity was determined by an expert panel and piloted. The initial version of these instruments consisted of 12 items were validated from October-December 2018 at a primary care clinic in Malaysia. Included were patients aged [greater than or equal to]21 years, diagnosed with diabetes mellitus, taking at least one oral hypoglycaemic agent and who could understand English. The HCPs recruited were family medicine specialists or trainees. To assess validity, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and concurrent validity were performed; internal consistency and test-retest were performed to assess its reliability. A total of 120/158 patients (response rate = 75.9%) and 30/33 HCPs (response rate = 90.9%) agreed to participate. EFA found three problematic items in both instruments, which was then removed. The final version of the P-MAI-9 and the HMAI-9 had 9 items each with two domains (adherence = 2 items and knowledge/belief = 7 items). For concurrent validity, the total score of the P-MAI-9 and the H-MAI-9 were not significantly different (p = 0.091), indicating that medication adherence assessed from both the patient's and HCP's perspectives were similar. Both instruments achieved acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach's [alpha]: P-MAI-9 = 0.722; H-MAI-9 = 0.895). For the P-MAI-9, 7/9 items showed no significant difference between test and retest whereas 8/9 items in the H-MAI-9 showed significant difference at test and retest (p>0.05). In conclusion, the P-MAI-9 and H-MAI-9 had low sensitivity and high specificity suggesting that both instruments can be used for identifying patients more likely to be non-adherent to their medications.