Systematic Reviews (Nov 2023)

Quality of measurement properties of medication adherence instruments in cardiovascular diseases and type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  • Henrique Ceretta Oliveira,
  • Daisuke Hayashi,
  • Samantha Dalbosco Lins Carvalho,
  • Rita de Cássia Lopes de Barros,
  • Mayza Luzia dos Santos Neves,
  • Carla Renata Silva Andrechuk,
  • Neusa Maria Costa Alexandre,
  • Paula Aver Bretanha Ribeiro,
  • Roberta Cunha Matheus Rodrigues

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-023-02340-z
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 12, no. 1
pp. 1 – 24

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Background Medication adherence has a major impact on reducing mortality and healthcare costs related to the treatment of cardiovascular diseases and diabetes mellitus. Selecting the best patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) among the many available for this kind of patient is extremely important. This study aims to critically assess, compare and synthesize the quality of the measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures to assess medication adherence among patients with cardiovascular diseases and/or type 2 diabetes mellitus. Methods This review followed the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines and was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The searches were performed in Web of Science, SCOPUS, PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, LILACS, PsycINFO, and ProQuest (gray literature). Results A total of 110 records encompassing 27 different PROMs were included in the review. The included records were published between 1986 and 2023, most of which reported studies conducted in the United States and were published in English. None of the PROMs were classified in the category “a”, thus being recommended for use due to the quality of its measurement properties. The PROMs that should not be recommended for use (category “c”) are the MTA, GMAS, DMAS-7, MALMAS, ARMS-D, and 5-item questionnaire. The remaining PROMs, e.g., MMAS-8, SMAQ, MEDS, MNPS, ARMS-12, MGT, MTA-OA, MTA-Insulin, LMAS-14, MARS-5, A-14, ARMS-10, IADMAS, MAQ, MMAS-5, ProMAS, ARMS‐7, 3-item questionnaire, AS, 12-item questionnaire, and Mascard were considered as having the potential to be recommended for use (category “b”). Conclusion None of the included PROMs met the criteria for being classified as trusted and recommended for use for patients with cardiovascular diseases and/or type 2 diabetes mellitus. However, 21 PROMs have the potential to be recommended for use, but further studies are needed to ensure their quality based on the COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of PROMs. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42019129109

Keywords