Why the study?
Although the HBC-HBP Scale is commonly used to measure medication adherence in elderly hypertensive patients, its Persian version had never been tested in Iran.
The 9-item HBC-HBP scale is a valid and reliable tool for assessing antihypertensive medication adherence among older adults of Persian, Turkmen, and Kazak ethnicities in Iran.
Persian HBC-HBP may aid adherence assessment in Iranian elderly hypertensives; leaves open routine adoption pending confirmatory studies.
Introduction: The HBC-HBP Scale is the most common scale for measuring adherence to medication in the elderly with hypertension, its Persian version has never been tested in Iran. Methods: 281 older adults with hypertension were randomly selected from health care centers in Iran during the second half-year of 2019. The demographic questionnaire and Persian, Turkmen, and Kazak versions of HBC-HBP were completed by participants. The scale structure was evaluated using goodness of fit by Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis using IBM-SPSS v.26 and AMOS v.24. Results: The mean of CVI was 0.94, indicating good content validity for HBC-HBP. Exploratory Factor Analysis revealed two subscales for HBC-HBP, collectively explaining 70% of the adherence medication variance in three versions. All item loadings were “moderate” to “excellent”, ranging from 0.38 (Moderate) to 0.95(excellent). Confirmatory Factor Analysis indicated the goodness of fit for the HBC-HBP based on the trilingual version. A high goodness of fit was sown for Turkmen, Persian, and Kazak versions of HBC-HBP. (Chi-Square=8.213, 8.354, 8.210, RMSEA=0.016, 0.013, 0.010, GFI=0.90, 0.90, 0.91, CFI=0.91, 0.90, 0.91, and AGFI=0.90, 0.91, 0.90). Cronbach’s alpha was 0.90 for the whole scale (p<0.001). The optimal cut-off point that best distinguished between adherent and non-adherent patients was 26.5. Conclusion: Results showed the validity and reliability of the trilingual versions of the HBMA for measuring adherence medication in the elderly with hypertension.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kaveh et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: