CHUNG AND NAYA (2000)- RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS Flashcards
(9 cards)
Summarise the results?
While most patients took the correct number of pills (compliance), fewer took them at the correct times (adherence), and electronic monitoring revealed some patients tried to manipulate their results.
What was the median adhernece rate?
71%
What was median compliance rate?
89%. → Most patients took the recommended pills, but not always at the right time.
66% of patients took over 80% of their doses.→ This shows moderate to good overall compliance.
Results- pill counting vs TrackCap?
Tablet counts showed higher compliance (92%) than TrackCap. → Suggests tablet counts may overestimate how well people stick to their regimen.
Results- patients who tried to cheat the system?
1 took out a week’s supply at once.
2 removed extra pills before clinic visits to appear compliant
Conclusion?
- Compliance was consistently high, throughout the 12 weeks of treatment.
- Adherence (although lower than compliance) was still good.
- Even when patients take the correct number of pills- there were still instances of timing errors and dishonest behavior–so objective methods are essential to truly understand patient behavior/ adherence.
Name 1 strength and 1 weakness?
Strength: Objective measure- provides accurate, detailed quantitative data about when medication was taken- reduces bias/ subjective interpretations- more reliable than self reports.
Weakness- low validity/ construct validity- Track cap cannot directltly measure whether medication was acually taken.
Ethics?
Patients may not have known how closely they were being monitored, raising issues around informed consent and privacy.
Real world application?
Uncovered Dishonest Behaviour- Showed that some patients tried to fake adherence, which highlights the value of using objective methods in healthcare.
