Key result
Direct drug testing detects antihypertensive adherence in only ~32% of patients versus ~90% by self-report.
Why the study?
Assessing adherence to antihypertensive medication remains a major challenge for healthcare professionals, requiring comparison between direct and indirect assessment methods.
How does the self-report scale compare to drug biochemical analysis in assessing adherence to antihypertensive treatment?
Cross-Sectional
How does the self-report scale compare to drug biochemical analysis in assessing adherence to antihypertensive treatment?
Absolute Event Rate: 32.4% vs 90.1%
Indirect self-report methods substantially overestimate adherence to antihypertensive therapy compared to direct biochemical analysis.
Self-reports overestimate antihypertensive adherence versus biochemical analysis; leaves open optimal assessment methods in practice and research.
Background: Assessing adherence to antihypertensive medication remains a major challenge for healthcare professionals. The objective of this study was to compare the evaluation of adherence to antihypertensive medication between direct and indirect methods, and to identify variables associated with nonadherence. Methods: < 0.20 in the bivariate analysis were included in the multiple logistic regression model. The significance level was set at 5%. Cohen's Kappa coefficient (CKC) was used to assess agreement between the methods. Results: The sample consisted predominantly of women (61.7%), white individuals (63.2%), and married participants (52.8%), with a mean age of 65 ± 13.3 years and median education of 12.0 (7-12) years. Participants were using an average of 3.2 ± 1.3 antihypertensive drugs, and 69.2% had controlled blood pressure (BP). The prevalence of adherence according to the direct method was 32.4%, while 90.1% were adherent according to the indirect method. Agreement between the direct and indirect methods was low (CKC = 0.014). Variables independently associated with nonadherence according to the direct method were regular physical activity (odds ratio [OR], 0.370; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.158-0.853), proteinuria (OR, 2.406; 95% CI, 1.066-5.751), number of antihypertensive medications (OR, 1.570; 95% CI, 1.127-2.225), and systolic BP (OR, 1.051; 95% CI, 1.010-1.097). Indirect adherence assessment was associated only with the presence of common mental disorders (OR, 1.163; 95% CI, 1.035-1.307). Conclusions: The prevalence of adherence to antihypertensive drug treatment assessed by the indirect method was substantially higher than that observed with the direct method. The results were inconsistent between the 2 approaches. Moreover, the direct method identified a broader range of variables associated with nonadherence.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Guimarães et al. (2026) conducted a cross-sectional in Hypertension. Direct method (drug biochemical analysis) vs. Indirect method (self-report scale) was evaluated on Prevalence of adherence to antihypertensive medication. The direct method of assessing antihypertensive adherence yielded a substantially lower prevalence (32.4%) compared to the indirect self-report method (90.1%), demonstrating low agreement.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: