| Title |
Novel methods to estimate antiretroviral adherence: protocol for a longitudinal study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Patient preference and adherence, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ppa.s166380 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Parya Saberi, Kristin Ming, Dominique Legnitto, Torsten B Neilands, Monica Gandhi, Mallory O Johnson |
| Abstract |
There is currently no gold standard for assessing antiretroviral (ARV) adherence, so researchers often resort to the most feasible and cost-effective methods possible (eg, self-report), which may be biased or inaccurate. The goal of our study was to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of innovative and remote methods to estimate ARV adherence, which can potentially be conducted with less time and financial resources in a wide range of clinic and research settings. Here, we describe the research protocol for studying these novel methods and some lessons learned. The 6-month pilot study aimed to examine the feasibility and acceptability of a remotely conducted study to evaluate the correlation between: 1) text-messaged photographs of pharmacy refill dates for refill-based adherence; 2) text-messaged photographs of pills for pill count-based adherence; and 3) home-collected hair sample measures of ARV concentration for pharmacologic-based adherence. Participants were sent monthly automated text messages to collect refill dates and pill counts that were taken and sent via mobile telephone photographs, and hair collection kits every 2 months by mail. At the study end, feasibility was calculated by specific metrics, such as the receipt of hair samples and responses to text messages. Participants completed a quantitative survey and qualitative exit interviews to examine the acceptability of these adherence evaluation methods. The relationship between the 3 novel metrics of adherence and self-reported adherence will be assessed. Investigators conducting adherence research are often limited to using either self-reported adherence, which is subjective, biased, and often overestimated, or other more complex methods. Here, we describe the protocol for evaluating the feasibility and acceptability of 3 novel and remote methods of estimating adherence, with the aim of evaluating the relationships between them. Additionally, we note the lessons learned from the protocol implementation to date. We expect that these novel measures will be feasible and acceptable. The implications of this research will be the identification and evaluation of innovative and accurate metrics of ARV adherence for future implementation. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 50 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 14% |
| Other | 6 | 12% |
| Researcher | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 8 | 16% |
| Unknown | 13 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 22% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 8% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 3 | 6% |
| Psychology | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 7 | 14% |
| Unknown | 16 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 July 2018.
All research outputs
#16,728,456
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#1,001
of 1,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#210,279
of 342,877 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#30
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,757 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 342,877 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.