Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Questionnaires on adherence to antihypertensive treatment: a systematic review of published questionnaires and their psychometric properties

  • Review Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background Non-adherence to antihypertensive treatment is currently considered one of the most significant risk factors in failure to achieve controlled blood pressure values. It is therefore extremely important to measure patient adherence to antihypertensive treatment. One way to measure adherence is through questionnaires. Numerous questionnaires for measuring adherence to antihypertensive treatment have been validated, but it not easy to choose one of them as being more appropriate than all of the others. Aim of the review The aim of this study was to identify and assess questionnaires designed to measure non-adherence to antihypertensive treatment, and to discuss their psychometric properties. Method A systematic review of the literature contained in PubMed and Scopus databases was undertaken to identify validated questionnaires on adherence to antihypertensive treatment up to October 2017. PRISMA guidelines were followed to conduct and report this review. Selection of articles and data extraction were performed by two independent researchers. When there was lack of agreement, a third researcher mediated in the discussion between the first two authors so that consensus could be reached. Results 39 articles were obtained containing 17 different questionnaires for measuring adherence to antihypertensive treatment. These questionnaires were validated in 15 countries. The number of items in the questionnaires ranged from three in QAM-Q to 33 in TAQPH. Hill-Bone compliance to high blood pressure therapy scale, Morisky-Green-Levine test and an 8-item Self-Reported Medication Adherence Measurement were the most widely validated questionnaires. Validity was analyzed more than reliability. Many of the questionnaires do not provide information on content validity. Construct validity and concurrent validity are analyzed in almost all of the questionnaires, and give highly variable results. By contrast, known-groups validity was not analyzed to any great degree. As regards reliability, almost all of the questionnaires provided Cronbach’s alpha information with reasonably acceptable results, but temporal stability was not analyzed to any great degree. Conclusion None of the questionnaires included in the review demonstrates fulfilling all of the validity tests (content validity, construct validity and criterion-related validity) and reliability tests (homogeneity and temporal stability) in an acceptable manner. Therefore, none of them can be considered a Gold Standard.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. NCD Risk Factor Collaboration. Worldwide trends in blood pressure from 1975 to 2015: a pooled analysis of 1479 population-based measurement studies with 19·1 million participants. Lancet Lond Engl. 2017;389:37–55.

    Google Scholar 

  2. The top 10 causes of death [Internet]. World Health Organ. http://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/the-top-10-causes-of-death. Accessed 18 Oct 2018.

  3. Patricia MK, Megan W, Kristi R, Paul KW, Jiang H. Worldwide prevalence of hypertension: a systematic review. J Hypertens. 2004;22:11–9.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Mancia G, Rosei EA, Azizi M, Burnier M, Clement DL, Coca A, et al. ESC/ESH Guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension. Eur Heart J. 2018;39:3104-3021.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Costa F. Improving adherence to treatment and reducing economic costs of hypertension: the role of olmesartan-based treatment. High Blood Press Cardiovasc Prev. 2017;24:265–74.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Lehmann A, Aslani P, Ahmed R, Celio J, Gauchet A, Bedouch P, et al. Assessing medication adherence: options to consider. Int J Clin Pharm. 2014;36:55–69.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group TP. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLOS Med. 2009;6:e1000097.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JPA, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009;339:b2700.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Kim MT, Hill MN, Bone LR, Levine DM. Development and testing of the Hill-Bone compliance to high blood pressure therapy scale. Prog Cardiovasc Nurs. 2000;15:90–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Krousel-Wood M, Jannu A, Re RN, Muntner P, Desalvo K. Reliability of a medication adherence measure in an outpatient setting. Am J Med Sci. 2005;330:128–33.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lambert EV, Steyn K, Stender S, Everage N, Fourie JM, Hill M. Cross-cultural validation of the Hill-Bone compliance to high blood pressure therapy scale in a South African, primary healthcare setting. Ethn Dis. 2006;16:286–91.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Karademir M, Koseoglu IH, Vatansever K, Van Den Akker M. Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Hill-Bone compliance to high blood pressure therapy scale for use in primary health care settings. Eur J Gen Pract. 2009;15:207–11.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Song Y, Han H-R, Song H-J, Nam S, Nguyen T, Kim MT. Psychometric evaluation of Hill-Bone medication adherence subscale. Asian Nurs Res. 2011;5:183–8.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Uchmanowicz I, Jankowska-Polańska B, Chudiak A, Szymańska-Chabowska A, Mazur G. Psychometric evaluation of the Polish adaptation of the Hill-Bone compliance to high blood pressure therapy scale. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2016;16:87.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Morisky DE, Green LW, Levine DM. Concurrent and predictive validity of a self-reported measure of medication adherence. Med Care. 1986;24:67–74.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. van de Steeg N, Sielk M, Pentzek M, Bakx C, Altiner A. Drug-adherence questionnaires not valid for patients taking blood-pressure-lowering drugs in a primary health care setting. J Eval Clin Pract. 2009;15:468–72.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ben AJ, Neumann CR, Mengue SS. The brief medication questionnaire and Morisky–Green test to evaluate medication adherence. Rev Saude Publica. 2012;46:279–89.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Morisky DE, Ang A, Krousel-Wood M, Ward HJ. Predictive validity of a medication adherence measure in an outpatient setting. J Clin Hypertens. 2008;10:348–54.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Oliveira-Filho AD, Barreto-Filho JA, Neves SJF, de Lyra Junior DP. Association between the 8-item Morisky medication adherence scale (MMAS-8) and blood pressure control. Arq Bras Cardiol. 2012;99:649–58.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Korb-Savoldelli V, Gillaizeau F, Pouchot J, Lenain E, Postel-Vinay N, Plouin P-F, et al. Validation of a French version of the 8-item Morisky medication adherence scale in hypertensive adults. J Clin Hypertens Greenwich Conn. 2012;14:429–34.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Shin D-S, Kim C-J. Psychometric evaluation of a Korean version of the 8-item medication adherence scale in rural older adults with hypertension. Aust J Rural Health. 2013;21:336–42.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. de Oliveira-Filho AD, Morisky DE, Neves SJF, Costa FA, de Lyra DP. The 8-item Morisky Medication adherence scale: validation of a Brazilian–Portuguese version in hypertensive adults. Res Soc Adm Pharm. 2014;10:554–61.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Kim J-H, Lee W-Y, Hong Y-P, Ryu W-S, Lee KJ, Lee W-S, et al. Psychometric properties of a short self-reported measure of medication adherence among patients with hypertension treated in a busy clinical setting in Korea. J Epidemiol. 2014;24:132–40.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Hacıhasanoğlu Aşılar R, Gözüm S, Çapık C, Morisky DE. Reliability and validity of the Turkish form of the eight-item Morisky medication adherence scale in hypertensive patients. Anadolu Kardiyol Derg AKD Anatol J Cardiol. 2014;14:692–700.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Moharamzad Y, Saadat H, Nakhjavan Shahraki B, Rai A, Saadat Z, Aerab-Sheibani H, et al. Validation of the Persian version of the 8-item Morisky medication adherence scale (MMAS-8) in Iranian hypertensive patients. Glob J Health Sci. 2015;7:173–83.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Pareja-Martínez E, Esquivel-Prados E, Franco L, García-Corpas JP. Adherence to antihypertensive therapy in community pharmacy: evaluating the psychometric properties of the Morisky medication adherence scale (MMAS-8) translated into Spanish. Pilot study. Lat Am J Pharm. 2015;34:86–93.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Gallagher BD, Muntner P, Moise N, Lin JJ, Kronish IM. Are two commonly used self-report questionnaires useful for identifying antihypertensive medication nonadherence? J Hypertens. 2015;33:1108–13.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Pandey A, Raza F, Velasco A, Brinker S, Ayers C, Das SR, et al. Comparison of Morisky medication adherence scale with therapeutic drug monitoring in apparent treatment-resistant hypertension. J Am Soc Hypertens JASH. 2015;9(420–426):e2.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Okello S, Nasasira B, Muiru ANW, Muyingo A. Validity and reliability of a self-reported measure of antihypertensive medication adherence in Uganda. PLoS ONE. 2016;11:e0158499.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Jankowska-Polanska B, Uchmanowicz I, Chudiak A, Dudek K, Morisky DE, Szymanska-Chabowska A. Psychometric properties of the Polish version of the eight-item Morisky medication adherence scale in hypertensive adults. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2016;10:1759–66.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Ogedegbe G, Mancuso CA, Allegrante JP, Charlson ME. Development and evaluation of a medication adherence self-efficacy scale in hypertensive African–American patients. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56:520–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Fernandez S, Chaplin W, Schoenthaler AM, Ogedegbe G. Revision and validation of the medication adherence self-efficacy scale (MASES) in hypertensive African Americans. J Behav Med. 2008;31:453–62.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Gozum S, Hacihasanoglu R. Reliability and validity of the Turkish adaptation of medication adherence self-efficacy scale in hypertensive patients. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs J Work Group Cardiovasc Nurs Eur Soc Cardiol. 2009;8:129–36.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Hacihasanoğlu R, Gözüm S, Capik C. Validity of the Turkish version of the medication adherence self-efficacy scale-short form in hypertensive patients. Anadolu Kardiyol Derg AKD Anatol J Cardiol. 2012;12:241–8.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Saffari M, Zeidi IM, Fridlund B, Chen H, Pakpour AH. A Persian adaptation of medication adherence self-efficacy scale (MASES) in hypertensive patients: psychometric properties and factor structure. High Blood Press Cardiovasc Prev Off J Ital Soc Hypertens. 2015;22:247–55.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Ma C, Chen S, You L, Luo Z, Xing C. Development and psychometric evaluation of the treatment adherence questionnaire for patients with hypertension. J Adv Nurs. 2012;68:1402–13.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Dehghan M, Dehghan-Nayeri N, Iranmanesh S. Translation and validation of the Persian version of the treatment adherence questionnaire for patients with hypertension. ARYA Atheroscler. 2016;12:76–86.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. de Santa Helena ET, Nemes MIB, Eluf-Neto J. Development and validation of a multidimensional questionnaire assessing non-adherence to medicines. Rev Saude Publica. 2008;42:764–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Zeller A, Schroeder K, Peters TJ. An adherence self-report questionnaire facilitated the differentiation between nonadherence and nonresponse to antihypertensive treatment. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:282–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Pérez-Escamilla B, Franco-Trigo L, Moullin JC, Martínez-Martínez F, García-Corpas JP. Identification of validated questionnaires to measure adherence to pharmacological antihypertensive treatments. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2015;9:569–78.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Martín Alfonso L, Bayarre Vea HD, Grau Ábalo JA. Validación del cuestionario MBG (Martín-Bayarre-Grau) para evaluar la adherencia terapéutica en hipertensión arterial. Rev Cuba Salud Pública [Internet]. 2008. http://scielo.sld.cu/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext%26pid=S0864-34662008000100012. Accessed 10 Dec 2019.

  42. Martínez JW, Villa Perea JA, Jaramillo J, Quintero Betancur AM, Calderón V. Validación del cuestionario de adherencia al tratamiento anti hipertensivo Martín Bayarré Grau. Rev Med Risaralda. 2011;17:101–5.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Strainer DL, Norman GR, Cairney J. Health measurement scales. A practical guide to their development and use. 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  44. DeVellis RF. Scale development. Theory and applications. 3rd ed. California: Sage Publication; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Powell KR, Peterson SR. Coverage and quality: a comparison of web of science and scopus databases for reporting faculty nursing publication metrics. Nurs Outlook. 2017;65:572–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Johnson MJ, Rogers S. Development of the purposeful action medication-taking questionnaire. West J Nurs Res. 2006;28:335–51.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Wetzels G, Nelemans P, van Wijk B, Broers N, Schouten J, Prins M. Determinants of poor adherence in hypertensive patients: development and validation of the «Maastricht Utrecht Adherence in Hypertension (MUAH)-questionnaire». Patient Educ Couns. 2006;64:151–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. He W, Bonner A, Anderson D. Patient reported adherence to hypertension treatment: A revalidation study. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2016;15:150–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance provided by Lucía Franco Trigo in this systematic review. This article is part of the doctoral thesis submitted by Elisa Pareja Martínez to obtain a Doctorate in Pharmacy at the University of Granada, Spain.

Funding

The authors declare this study has not received any funding.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Academic Center in Pharmaceutical Care, Pharmaceutical Care Research Group, Pharmacy Faculty, University of Granada, Campus Universitario de Cartuja s/n, 18071, Granada, Spain

    Elisa Pareja-Martínez, Elisabeth Esquivel-Prados, Fernando Martínez-Martínez & José P. García-Corpas

Authors
  1. Elisa Pareja-Martínez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elisabeth Esquivel-Prados
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Fernando Martínez-Martínez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. José P. García-Corpas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to José P. García-Corpas.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pareja-Martínez, E., Esquivel-Prados, E., Martínez-Martínez, F. et al. Questionnaires on adherence to antihypertensive treatment: a systematic review of published questionnaires and their psychometric properties. Int J Clin Pharm 42, 355–365 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-020-00981-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-020-00981-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation