Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association · 2026
Conventional adherence assessment methods are low-sensitivity diagnostic tests in people with type 2 diabetes: The TARGET study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Osman Hanad, Jenkins Sian, Patel Prashanth, Khunti Kamlesh, Seidu Samuel, Gupta Pankaj
Аннотация
AIMS: To evaluate the performance of conventional adherence assessment methods against objective chemical adherence testing (CAT) in people with type 2 diabetes.
METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, 90 participants with type 2 diabetes attending primary care were assessed using CAT (n = 49), medication possession ratio (MPR; n = 60) and Hill-Bone Medication Adherence Scale (HBMAS; n = 58). Associations with HbA1c and blood pressure (BP) were assessed, and within-person diagnostic performance was evaluated in 21 participants with all three measures.
RESULTS: Only CAT-defined non-adherence was associated with significantly higher HbA1c, while CAT and MPR showed a significant association with diastolic BP. Within-person analysis suggested poor sensitivity for both MPR (16.7%; 95% CI 4.7-44.8) and HBMAS (66.7%; 95% CI 39.1-86.2), although HBMAS demonstrated very low specificity (11.1%; 95% CI 2.0-43.5) compared with CAT.
CONCLUSIONS: Conventional adherence methods are low-sensitivity diagnostic tests, and CAT offers improved diagnosis of non-adherence in people with type 2 diabetes.
METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, 90 participants with type 2 diabetes attending primary care were assessed using CAT (n = 49), medication possession ratio (MPR; n = 60) and Hill-Bone Medication Adherence Scale (HBMAS; n = 58). Associations with HbA1c and blood pressure (BP) were assessed, and within-person diagnostic performance was evaluated in 21 participants with all three measures.
RESULTS: Only CAT-defined non-adherence was associated with significantly higher HbA1c, while CAT and MPR showed a significant association with diastolic BP. Within-person analysis suggested poor sensitivity for both MPR (16.7%; 95% CI 4.7-44.8) and HBMAS (66.7%; 95% CI 39.1-86.2), although HBMAS demonstrated very low specificity (11.1%; 95% CI 2.0-43.5) compared with CAT.
CONCLUSIONS: Conventional adherence methods are low-sensitivity diagnostic tests, and CAT offers improved diagnosis of non-adherence in people with type 2 diabetes.