Why the study?
Most medication adherence studies using group-based trajectory modeling choose binary over continuous models without providing a rationale, and no studies have compared continuous and binary approaches.
Does continuous versus binary group-based trajectory modeling impact adherence trajectory shapes and patient classification in older statin users post-MI?
Does continuous versus binary group-based trajectory modeling impact adherence trajectory shapes and patient classification in older statin users post-MI?
Continuous and binary trajectory models yield conceptually different measures of medication adherence, resulting in different patient classifications.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Binary vs continuous trajectory models classify post-MI statin users differently; leaves open which approach best predicts outcomes.
BACKGROUND: Of 58 medication adherence group-based trajectory modeling (GBTM) published studies, 74% used binary and 26% used continuous GBTM. Few studies provided a rationale for this choice. No medication adherence studies have compared continuous and binary GBTM. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess whether continuous versus binary GBTM: (1) impacts adherence trajectory shapes; and (2) results in the differential classification of patients into adherence groups. METHODS: Patients were prevalent statin users with myocardial infarction hospitalization, 66+ years old, and continuously enrolled in fee-for-service Medicare. Statin medication adherence was measured 6 months prehospitalization using administrative claims. Final GBTM specifications beyond default settings were selected using a previously defined standardized procedure and applied separately to continuous and binary (proportion of days covered ≥0.80) medication adherence measures. Assignment to adherence groups was compared between continuous and binary models using percent agreement of patient classification and the κ coefficient. RESULTS: Among 113,296 prevalent statin users, 4 adherence groups were identified in both models. Three groups were consistent: persistently adherent, progressively nonadherent, and persistently nonadherent. The fourth continuous group was moderately adherent (progressively adherent in the binary model). When comparing patient assignment into adherence groups between continuous and binary trajectory models, only 78.4% of patients were categorized into comparable groups (κ=0.641; 95% confidence interval: 0.638-0.645). The agreement was highest in the persistently adherent group (∼94%). CONCLUSIONS: Continuous and binary trajectory models are conceptually different measures of medication adherence. The choice between these approaches should be guided by study objectives and the role of medication adherence within the study-exposure, outcome, or confounder.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hickson et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: