Psychometric properties of medication adherence instruments in cardiovascular diseases and type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Medication adherence has a major impact on reducing mortality and healthcare costs related to the treatment of cardiovascular diseases and diabetes mellitus. The task of selecting the best PROM among the many available for this kind of patient is extremely important. This study aims to critically assess, compare and synthesize the quality of the measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures to access medication adherence among patients with cardiovascular diseases and/or type 2 diabetes mellitus. Methods This review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) and the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines. The searches were performed in Web of Science, SCOPUS, PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, LILACS, PsycINFO, and ProQuest (gray literature). Results A total of 94 records including 24 different PROMs were included in the review. The records were published between 1986 and 2020, most of them were conducted in the United States, and in English language. The only PROM that reached the criteria of category A, e.g., that can be recommended for use and results obtained can be trusted is the ProMAS. The PROMs that shouldn’t be recommended for use (category “c”) are the MTA, LMAS-14, GMAS, MEDS, MNPS, MALMAS, ARMS-D, DOSE-Nonadherence, MGT, MARS-5, and A-14. The remaining PROMs, e.g., MMAS-8, SMAQ, DMAS-7, ARMS-12, MTA-OA, MTA-Insulin, ARMS-10, IADMAS, MAQ, MMAS-5, ARMS-7, and 5-item questionnaire were considered as having the potential to be recommended for use (category “b”). Conclusion ProMAS is the only PROM that could be considered trusted and recommended for use for patients with cardiovascular diseases and/or type 2 diabetes mellitus. However, another 12 PROMs has the potential to be recommended for use but need further studies to ensure their quality, according to COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of PROMs. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42019129109.
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 | 0.058 | 0.145 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.042 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".