Advertisement

Digestive Diseases and Sciences

, Volume 64, Issue 10, pp 2784–2797 | Cite as

Content Validity and Reliability of a Self-Report Measure of Medication Nonadherence in Hepatitis C Treatment

  • Corrine I. VoilsEmail author
  • Heather A. King
  • Carolyn T. Thorpe
  • Dan V. Blalock
  • Ian M. Kronish
  • Bryce B. Reeve
  • Colleen Boatright
  • Ziad F. Gellad
Original Article
  • 117 Downloads

Abstract

Background

Nonadherence to direct-acting agents (DAAs) for hepatitis C (HCV) decreases viral response. To measure nonadherence to DAAs, a reliable, valid, and easily implemented method is needed.

Aims

The goals of this study were to refine a previously validated (in patients with hypertension) self-report measure of extent of nonadherence and reasons for nonadherence in the context of DAAs and to obtain initial evidence of content validity and reliability.

Methods

Phase I involved two focus groups with patients with HCV (n = 12) and one focus group with prescribers of HCV medications (n = 6) to establish content validity of reasons for nonadherence. Subsequent cognitive interviews with patients (n = 11) were conducted to refine items. Phase II was a prospective cohort study involving weekly administration of the refined measure by telephone to patients (n = 75) who are prescribed DAAs to evaluate reliability and consistency with viral response.

Results

In the cohort study, internal consistency ranged from acceptable (α = .69) to very high (α = 1.00) across time points and was quite high on average (α = .91). Across the 75 participants, there were 895 measurement occasions; of those, nonadherence was reported on only 27 occasions (3%), all of which occurred in the first 12 weeks. These 27 occasions represented 19 (26%) different individuals. At 12 weeks, 1 (1%) of patients had a detectable HCV viral load; at 12–24 weeks posttreatment, 4 (5%) had a sustained viral response. Nonadherent patients reported an average of 1.41 reasons for nonadherence.

Conclusions

This multi-method study established content validity of reasons for nonadherence and reliability of extent of nonadherence. High rates of adherence and viral response were consistent with previous studies using other nonadherence measurement methods.

Keywords

Adherence Content validity Cognitive interviews Focus groups Qualitative research Psychometrics 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to extend special thanks to Andrew Muir, MD MHS, and Christine Hunt, MD, for their clinical input and Jamiyla Bolton, Jahdai Dawes, Leslie Gaillard, Tina Lucas, Elizabeth Strawbridge, and Cherisa Williams for their assistance with recruitment and data collection. The views represented in this article represent those of the authors and not those of the VA or the United States Government.

Funding

Phase I of this study was supported by an investigator-initiated grant from Vertex Pharmaceuticals to Dr. Voils. Phase II of this study was funded by the Department of Medicine at Duke University Medical Center. Effort on this paper was supported by resources and facilities at the Veterans Affairs Medical Centers in Madison and Durham and by a Research Career Scientist award to Dr. Voils from the Health Services Research and Development (HSR&D) service of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA; RCS 14-443) and a VA HSR&D Career Development Award to Dr. Gellad (CDA 14-158).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Dr. Gellad is cofounder and holds equity in Higgs Boson Inc. No other author declares a conflict of interest.

Ethical standard

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

References

  1. 1.
    Petruzziello A, Marigliano S, Loquercio G, et al. Global epidemiology of hepatitis C virus infection: an up-date of the distribution and circulation of hepatitis C virus genotypes. World J Gastroenterol. 2016;22:7824–7840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kabiri M, Jazwinski AB, Roberts MS, et al. The changing burden of hepatitis C virus infection in the United States: model-based predictions. Ann Intern Med. 2014;161:170–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Razavi H, ElKhoury AC, Elbasha E, et al. Chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) disease burden and cost in the United States. Hepatology. 2013;57:2164–2170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    van der Meer AJ, Veldt BJ, Feld JJ, et al. Association between sustained virological response and all-cause mortality among patients with chronic hepatitis C and advanced hepatic fibrosis. Jama. 2012;308:2584–2593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Naggie S, Muir AJ. Oral combination therapies for hepatitis c virus infection: successes, challenges, and unmet needs. Annu Rev Med. 2017;68:345–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lo Re V 3rd, Teal V, Localio AR, et al. Relationship between adherence to hepatitis C virus therapy and virologic outcomes: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155:353–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    McHutchison JG, Manns M, Patel K, et al. Adherence to combination therapy enhances sustained response in genotype-1-infected patients with chronic hepatitis C. Gastroenterology. 2002;123:1061–1069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Voils CI, Hoyle RH, Thorpe CT, et al. Improving the measurement of self-reported medication nonadherence. J Cin Epidemiol. 2011;64:250–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Voils CI, King HA, Neelon B, et al. Characterizing weekly self-reported antihypertensive medication nonadherence across repeated occasions. Patient Preference Adherence. 2014;8:643–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Voils CI, Maciejewski ML, Hoyle RH, et al. Initial validation of a self-report measure of the extent of and reasons for medication nonadherence. Med Care. 2012;50:1013–1019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Blalock DV, Zullig LL, Bosworth HB, et al. Self-reported medication nonadherence predicts cholesterol levels over time. J Psychosom Res. 2019;118:49–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Weidenbacher HJ, Beadles CA, Maciejewski ML, et al. Extent and reasons for nonadherence to antihypertensive, cholesterol, and diabetes medications: the association with depressive symptom burden in a sample of American veterans. Patient Preference Adherence. 2015;9:327–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cornelius T, Voils CI, Birk JL, et al. Identifying targets for cardiovascular medication adherence interventions through latent class analysis. Health Psychol. 2018;37:1006–1014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bonner JE, Esserman DA, Golin CE, et al. Self-efficacy and adherence to antiviral treatment for chronic hepatitis C. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2015;49:76–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Evon DM, Esserman DA, Bonner JE, et al. Adherence to PEG/ribavirin treatment for chronic hepatitis C: prevalence, patterns, and predictors of missed doses and nonpersistence. J Viral Hepatitis. 2013;20:536–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Evon DM, Golin CE, Bonner JE, et al. Adherence during antiviral treatment regimens for chronic hepatitis C: a qualitative study of patient-reported facilitators and barriers. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2015;49:e41–e50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Guest G, Namey E, McKenna K. How many focus groups are enough? Building an evidence base for nonprobability sample sizes. Field Methods. 2017;29:3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hsieh H-F, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15:1277–1288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Namey E, Guest G, McKenna K, et al. Evaluating bang for the buck: a cost-effectiveness comparison between individual interviews and focus groups based on thematic saturation levels. Am J Eval. 2016;37:425–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Willis G. Cognitive Interviewing: A Tool for Improving Questionnaire Design. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lincoln YS, Guba E. Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage; 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Baker DW, Williams MV, Parker RM, et al. Development of a brief test to measure functional health literacy. Patient Educ Couns. 1999;38:33–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fagerlin A, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Ubel PA, et al. Measuring numeracy without a math test: development of the/Numeracy Scale. Med Decis Mak. 2007;27:672–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Callahan CM, Unverzagt FW, Hui SL, et al. Six-item screener to identify cognitive impairment among potential subjects for clinical research. Med Care. 2002;40:771–781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Horne R, Weinman J, Hankins M. The beliefs about medicines questionnaire: the development and evaluation of a new method for assessing the cognitive representation of medication. Psychol Health. 1999;14:1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fernandez S, Chaplin W, Schoenthaler AM, et al. Revision and validation of the medication adherence self-efficacy scale (MASES) in hypertensive African Americans. J Behav Med. 2008;31:453–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Walker DR, Juday TR, Manthena SR, et al. The impact of ribavirin on real-world adherence rates in hepatitis C patients treated with sofosbuvir plus simeprevir. ClinicoEcon Outcomes Res. 2015;7:637–642.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Petersen T, Townsend K, Gordon LA, et al. High adherence to all-oral directly acting antiviral HCV therapy among an inner-city patient population in a phase 2a study. Hepatol Int. 2016;10:310–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Cunningham EB, Amin J, Feld JJ, et al. Adherence to sofosbuvir and velpatasvir among people with chronic HCV infection and recent injection drug use: the SIMPLIFY study. Int J Drug Policy. 2018;62:14–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rogal SS, McCarthy R, Reid A, et al. Primary care and hepatology provider-perceived barriers to and facilitators of hepatitis CtTreatment candidacy and adherence. Dig Dis Sci. 2017;62:1933–1943.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-017-4608-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Phillips FH, Barnes D. Social support and adherence for military veterans with hepatitis C. Clin Spec. 2016;30:38–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Zacks S, Beavers K, Theodore D, et al. Social stigmatization and hepatitis C virus infection. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2006;40:220–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Zickmund S, Ho EY, Masuda M, et al. “They treated me like a leper”. Stigmatization and the quality of life of patients with hepatitis C. J Gen Intern Med. 2003;18:835–844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Spitzer RL, Williams JB, Kroenke K, et al. Utility of a new procedure for diagnosing mental disorders in primary care: the PRIME-MD 1000 study. J Am Med Assoc. 1994;272:1749–1756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gellad WF, Thorpe CT, Steiner JF, et al. The myths of medication adherence. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2017;26:1437–1441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Dominitz JA, Boyko EJ, Koepsell TD, et al. Elevated prevalence of hepatitis C infection in users of United States veterans medical centers. Hepatology. 2005;41:88–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Falade-Nwulia O, Suarez-Cuervo C, Nelson DR, et al. Oral direct-acting agent therapy for hepatitis c virus infection: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2017;166:637–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans HospitalMadisonUSA
  2. 2.Department of SurgeryUniversity of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public HealthMadisonUSA
  3. 3.Center of Innovation to Accelerate Discovery and Practice Transformation (ADAPT)Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care SystemDurhamUSA
  4. 4.Department of Population and Health SciencesDuke University Medical CenterDurhamUSA
  5. 5.Department of MedicineDuke University Medical CenterDurhamUSA
  6. 6.Center for Health Equity Research and PromotionVeterans Affairs Pittsburgh Healthcare SystemPittsburghUSA
  7. 7.Division of Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy, Eshelman School of PharmacyUniversity of North CarolinaChapel HillUSA
  8. 8.Department of PsychiatryDuke University Medical CenterDurhamUSA
  9. 9.Center for Behavioral Cardiovascular HealthColumbia University Medical CenterNew YorkUSA
  10. 10.Duke Clinical Research InstituteDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations