Developing and validating an instrument Chat with milfs no aign up
We hypothesised that this approach would be easier for patients than asking them for an accurate number of doses missed.14 For example, we considered that a patient usually missing a single dose every month would have had difficulties choosing between ‘once a month’ and ‘less than once a month’.One investigator (SS) interviewed four experts—two physicians, one pharmacist and one methodologist—with research experience in the field of medication adherence.In contrast, prescription refill rates can provide data on medication adherence in ‘real life’, but information on medication-taking behaviours (eg, schedule errors, omissions of doses, treatment discontinuation, etc) may be limited.Measurement of adherence is a complex task because patients could adhere differently to their multiple drugs9 11 Thus, it is important to understand how patients routinely manage their treatment because different intake behaviours could be associated with different consequences.11 In routine care, self-reported questionnaires are the simplest and cheapest way to assess adherence,12 14 There are many questionnaires in the literature to assess adherence, but most have been developed for specific conditions or treatments,15–17 and their measurement often focuses on predictors or factors of adherence18 or on quantitative rates of medication intake.19In this study, we aimed to develop and validate a self-reported questionnaire to assess medication adherence for each individual drug taken by patients with long-term drug treatment, suitable across any treatment context.,20 which describes adherence as a process divided into three quantifiable phases: initiation (first dose taken), implementation (defined as the extent to which a patient's actual dosing corresponds to the prescribed dosing regimen) and discontinuation (the end of the therapy).In a second step, we tested the revised instrument with 17 different patients whose responses suggested good acceptability of the tool.The resulting tool (online supplementary figure S1) contained five questions with two or three possible answers to each question.This site stores nothing other than an automatically generated session ID in the cookie; no other information is captured.
Clarity and wording were assessed during pilot testing with 51 patients.
If your browser does not accept cookies, you cannot view this site.
There are many reasons why a cookie could not be set correctly.
During semistructured interviews, she asked them about (1) the relevance of the tool; (2) the clarity of questions, possible answers, pictographs and (3) the global feasibility of the questionnaire.
The working group considered their comments and modified the preliminary tool. We performed a two-step pilot testing in April 2014.