|
" Accuracy of a screening tool for medication adherence: "
Moon, Sun Jae; Lee, Weon-Young; Hwang, Jin Seub; Hong, Yeon Pyo; Morisky, Donald E
| Document Type
|
:
|
AL
|
| Record Number
|
:
|
909349
|
| Doc. No
|
:
|
LA1ck661pw
|
| Title & Author
|
:
|
Accuracy of a screening tool for medication adherence:. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the Morisky Medication Adherence Scale-8. [Article]\ Moon, Sun Jae; Lee, Weon-Young; Hwang, Jin Seub; Hong, Yeon Pyo; Morisky, Donald E
|
| Date
|
:
|
2017
|
| Title of Periodical
|
:
|
UCLA
|
| Abstract
|
:
|
This systematic review examined the reliability and validity of the Morisky Medication Adherence Scale-8 (MMAS-8), which has been widely used to assess patient medication adherence in clinical research and medical practice.Of 418 studies identified through searching 4 electronic databases, we finally analyzed 28 studies meeting the selection criteria of this study regarding the reliability and validity of MMAS-8 including sensitivity and specificity. Meta-analysis for Cronbach's α, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), sensitivity and specificity to detect a patient with nonadherence to medication were performed. The pooled estimates for Cronbach's α and ICC were calculated using the random-effects weighted T transformation. A bivariate random-effects model was used to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity.The pooled Cronbach's α estimate for type 2 diabetes group in 7 studies and osteoporosis group in 3 studies were 0.67 (95% Confidence Interval(CI), 0.65 to 0.69) and 0.77 (95% CI, 0.72 to 0.83), respectively. With regard to test-retest, the pooled ICC for type 2 diabetes group in 3 studies and osteoporosis group in 2 studies were 0.81 (95% CI, 0.75 to 0.85) and 0.80 (95% CI, 0.74 to 0.85). For a cut-off value of 6, the pooled sensitivity and specificity in 12 studies were 0.43 (95% CI, 0.33 to 0.53) and 0.73 (95% CI, 0.68 to 0.78), respectively.The MMAS-8 had acceptable internal consistency and reproducibility in a few diseases like type 2 diabetes. Using the cut-off value of 6, criterion validity was not enough good to validly screen a patient with nonadherence to medication. However, this study did not calculated a pooled estimate for criterion validity using the higher values than 6 as a cut-off value since most of included individual studies did not report criterion validity based on those values.
|
| |