Measuring medication adherence in patients with incident hypertension: a retrospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Though pharmacy claims data are commonly used to study medication adherence, there remains no standard operational definition for adherence especially for patients on multiple medications. Even when studies use the same terminology, the actual methods of calculating adherence can differ drastically. It is unclear whether the use of different definitions results in different conclusions regarding adherence and associated outcomes. The objective of our study was to compare adherence rates and associations with mortality using different operational definitions of adherence, and using various methods of handling concurrent medication use. METHODS: We conducted a cohort study of patients aged ≥65 years from Manitoba, Canada, with incident hypertension diagnosed in 2004 and followed to 2009. We calculated adherence rates to anti-hypertensive medications using different operational definitions of medication adherence (including interval and prescription based medication possession ratios [MPR] and proportion of days covered [PDC]). For those on concurrent medications, we calculated adherence rates using the different methods of handling concurrent medication use, for each definition. We used logistic regression to determine the association between adherence and mortality for each operational definition. RESULTS: Among 2199 patients, 24.1% to 90.5% and 71.2% to 92.7% were considered adherent when using fixed interval and prescription-based interval medication possession ratios [MPRi and MPRp] respectively, depending on how concurrent medications were handled. Adherence was inversely associated with death, with the strongest association for MPRp measures. This association was significant only when considering adherence to any anti-hypertensive [aOR 0.70, 95% CI 0.51, 0.97], or when the mean of the class-specific MPRp's [adjusted OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.53, 0.95] was used. No significant association existed when the highest or lowest class-specific MPRp was used as the adherence estimate. CONCLUSION: The range of adherence estimates varies widely depending on the operational definition used. Given less variation in adherence rates and their stronger association against mortality, we recommend using prescription-based MPR's to define medication adherence.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".