Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Using Retrospective Databases to Study Adherence

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Adherence in Dermatology

  • 637 Accesses

Abstract

Retrospective analyses of claims databases are one of the most common tools to study real-world adherence patterns. These analyses are frequently used to determine adherence rates within specific populations [1, 2], compare adherence across multiple diseases or medications [3], or investigate how adherence changes over time [4, 5]. Investigating changes over time can include patient-level analyses showing trends in how many patients are still adherent or persistent at a certain number of months after initiating treatment [4]. A very different example of tracking adherence over time would use calendar time rather than time from each individual patient’s initiation of treatment, such as for assessing the impact of a policy change on adherence. For example, a policymaker may want to know if a reduction in co-payments for a medication led to improved adherence [5].

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    That is, as the sample size gets larger, the probability of a substantial difference between the groups decreases until it is highly unlikely (P value very close to zero) with very large samples.

References

  1. Tan X, Al-Dabagh A, Davis SA et al (2013) Medication adherence, healthcare costs and utilization associated with acne drugs in Medicaid enrollees with acne vulgaris. Am J Clin Dermatol 14(3):243–251

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bhosle MJ, Feldman SR, Camacho FT et al (2006) Medication adherence and health care costs associated with biologics in Medicaid-enrolled patients with psoriasis. J Dermatol Treat 17(5):294–301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Yeaw J, Benner JS, Walt JG et al (2009) Comparing adherence and persistence across 6 chronic medication classes. J Manag Care Pharm 15(9):728–740

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Blaschke T, Osterberg L, Vrijens B, Urquhart J (2012) Adherence to medications: insights arising from studies on the unreliable link between prescribed and actual drug dosing histories. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 52:275–301

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Maciejewski ML, Wansink D, Lindquist JH et al (2014) Value-based insurance design program in North Carolina increased medication adherence but was not cost neutral. Health Aff (Millwood) 33(2):300–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Schneeweiss S, Suissa S (2013) Advanced approaches to controlling confounding in pharmacoepidemiologic studies. In: Strom BL, Kimmel SE, Hennessy S (eds) Textbook of pharmacoepidemiology. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  7. Nolan BV, Feldman SR (2009) Adherence, the fourth dimension in the geometry of dermatological treatment. Arch Dermatol 145(11):1319–1321

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hagele TJ, Levender MM, Davis SA et al (2012) Practice trends in the treatment of actinic keratosis in the United States: 0.5% fluorouracil and combination cryotherapy plus fluorouracil are underused despite evidence of benefit. J Cutan Med Surg 16(2):107–114

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Wagner AK, Soumerai SB, Zhang F, Ross-Degnan D (2002) Segmented regression analysis of interrupted time series studies in medication use research. J Clin Pharm Ther 27(4):299–309

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Toh S, Andrade SE, Raebel MA et al (2013) Examples of existing automated databases. In: Strom BL, Kimmel SE, Hennessy S (eds) Textbook of pharmacoepidemiology. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  11. Quint JB (2015) Health research data for the real world: the MarketScan® databases. Truven Health Analytics, Ann Arbor

    Google Scholar 

  12. Nau DP Proportion of days covered (PDC) as a preferred method of measuring adherence. Available at http://www.pqaalliance.org/images/uploads/files/PQA%20PDC%20vs%20%20MPR.pdf. Accessed 29 Dec 2015

  13. Young GJ, Rickles NM, Chou CH, Raver E (2014) Socioeconomic characteristics of enrollees appear to influence performance scores for medicare part D contractors. Health Aff (Millwood) 33(1):140–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. American Pharmacists Association and Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy (2014) Medicare star ratings: stakeholder proceedings on community pharmacy and managed care partnerships in quality. J Am Pharm Assoc 54(3):e238–e250

    Google Scholar 

  15. Reid RO, Deb P, Howell BL, Shrank WH (2013) Association between Medicare advantage plan star ratings and enrollment. JAMA 309(3):267–274

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Pharmacy Quality Alliance Executive update on medication quality measures in medicare part D plan ratings 2013. Available at http://pqaalliance.org/measures/cms.asp. Accessed 29 Dec 2015

  17. Martin BC, Wiley-Exley EK, Richards S et al (2009) Contrasting measures of adherence with simple drug use, medication switching, and therapeutic duplication. Ann Pharmacother 43(1):36–44

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ray WA (2003) Evaluating medication effects outside of clinical trials: new-user designs. Am J Epidemiol 158(9):915–920

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Stürmer T, Wyss R, Glynn RJ, Brookhart MA (2014) Propensity scores for confounder adjustment when assessing the effects of medical interventions using nonexperimental study designs. J Intern Med 275(6):570–580

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Riis AH, Johansen MB, Jacobsen JB et al (2015) Short look-back periods in pharmacoepidemiologic studies of new users of antibiotics and asthma medications introduce severe misclassification. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 24(5):478–485

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Leslie RS Using arrays to calculate medication utilization. Available at http://www2.sas.com/proceedings/forum2007/043-2007.pdf. Accessed 29 Dec 2015

  22. Kleinbaum DG, Kupper LL, Nizam A, Muller KE (2008) Applied regression analysis and other multivariable methods, 4th edn. Duxbury, Belmont

    Google Scholar 

  23. Johnson ES, Bartman BA, Briesacher BA et al (2013) The incident user design in comparative effectiveness research. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 22(1):1–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Harris AD, McGregor JC, Perencevich EN et al (2006) The use and interpretation of quasi-experimental studies in medical informatics. J Am Med Inform Assoc 13(1):16–23

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Storm A, Andersen SE, Benfeldt E, Serup J (2008) One in 3 prescriptions are never redeemed: primary nonadherence in an outpatient clinic. J Am Acad Dermatol 59(1):27–33

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Strom BL (2013) Overview of automated databases in pharmacoepidemiology. In: Strom BL, Kimmel SE, Hennessy S (eds) Textbook of pharmacoepidemiology. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  27. Lauffenburger JC, Balasubramanian A, Farley JF et al (2013) Completeness of prescription information in US commercial claims databases. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 22(8):899–906

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Carstensen SE, Huang KE, Feldman SR (2014) Treatment failure of patients using topical acne treatments: a retrospective observational cohort study. J Dermatolog Treat 25(3):193–195

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Dermatology, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA

    Scott A. Davis

  2. Division of Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy, University of North Carolina Eshelman School of Pharmacy, Chapel Hill, NC, USA

    Scott A. Davis

  3. Departments of Dermatology, Pathology, and Public Health Sciences, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA

    Steven R. Feldman

Authors
  1. Scott A. Davis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Steven R. Feldman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Scott A. Davis .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Eshelman Sch of Pharma, CB#7355, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA

    Scott A. Davis

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Davis, S.A., Feldman, S.R. (2016). Using Retrospective Databases to Study Adherence. In: Davis, S. (eds) Adherence in Dermatology. Adis, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30994-1_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30994-1_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Adis, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-30992-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-30994-1

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation