Validity assessment of self-reported medication use by comparing to pharmacy insurance claims

Fujita, Misuzu; Sato, Yasunori; Nagashima, Kengo; Takahashi, Sho; Hata, Akira

doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009490

Cited by 29 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Patient interviews, the most common comparison in this review, are time intensive and susceptible to participation bias and recall errors. Patient surveys may suffer from low participation rates, unless included as part of routine clinical care . Biochemical measures are costly and may misclassify medication exposure for intermittently used medications or patients with transient nonadherence.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…We identified 30 studies from eight countries which validated methods for establishing active medication lists using pharmacy databases against medication use data obtained from other sources (Table ) . Studies had variable patient inclusion criteria, often requiring evidence of medication claims in the database prior to the study period.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Four studies compared different look‐back period durations, consistently demonstrating that longer durations resulted in higher sensitivity but lower specificity and PPV. Two studies which also included postindex fills also demonstrated that increasing the overall duration examined resulted in higher sensitivity …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A systematic review of methods for determining cross‐sectional active medications using pharmacy databases

Anderson

Whitaker

et al. 2019

Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Pharmacy dispensing databases are often used to identify patients' medications at a particular time point, for example to measure prescribing quality or the impact of medication use on clinical outcomes. We performed a systematic review of studies that examined methods to assess medications in use at a specific point in time. Methods Comprehensive literature search to identify studies that compared active medications identified using pharmacy databases to medications identified using nonautomated data sources. Two investigators independently reviewed abstracts and full‐text material. Results Of 496 studies screened, 29 studies evaluating 50 comparisons met inclusion criteria. Twenty‐nine comparisons evaluated fixed look‐back period approaches, defining active medications as those filled in a specified period prior to the index date (range 84‐730 days). Fourteen comparisons evaluated medication‐on‐hand approaches, defining active medications as those for which the most recent fill provided sufficient supply to last through the study index date. Sensitivity ranged from 48% to 93% for fixed look‐back period approaches and 35% to 97% for medication‐on‐hand approaches. Interpretation of comparative performance of methods was limited by use of different reference sources, target medication classes, and databases across studies. In four studies with head‐to‐head comparisons of these methods, sensitivity of the medication‐on‐hand approach was a median of 7% lower than the corresponding fixed look‐back approach. Conclusions The reported accuracy of methods for identifying active medications using pharmacy databases differs greatly across studies. More direct comparisons of common approaches are needed to establish the accuracy of methods within and across populations, medication classes, and databases.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A systematic review of methods for determining cross‐sectional active medications using pharmacy databases

Anderson

Whitaker

et al. 2019

Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, the accuracy of the information obtained by such questionnaires is limited by recall bias. A substantial amount of inaccurate data could result in "misclassification bias," leading to incorrect estimates of disease risk and/or prevalence [34]. However, it is recognized and mentioned that SM must be accompanied by appropriate health information [34].…”

Section: Question Unansweredmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A substantial amount of inaccurate data could result in "misclassification bias," leading to incorrect estimates of disease risk and/or prevalence [34]. However, it is recognized and mentioned that SM must be accompanied by appropriate health information [34]. The majority of the studies though with weak designs ended up suggesting educating people regarding SM and its adverse nature, but it does not substantiate that showcasing the prevalence has to be hyped.…”

Section: Question Unansweredmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research on Self Medication: A Hype or a Hope? A Literature Review.

Halappa¹

2016

Asian J Pharm Clin Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Medications are one of the most important tools in public health practice. Since the 1980s, self-medication (SM) is of prime public health importance as the World Health Organization, to reduce the burden on health-care professionals changed some prescription drugs to be sold over the counter. Each drug has its own advantages and disadvantages. Hence, always they have to be taken with caution. Considering this, a recent trend has increased in surveying the prevalence of SM. Hence, this review critically evaluated the studies to put light on the basic concept of SM.

show abstract

Validation of self-reported medication use for hypertension, diabetes, and dyslipidemia among employees of large-sized companies in Japan

Fukai

Nagata

Mori

et al. 2020

Journal of Occupational Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective The aim of this study was to evaluate the validity of self‐reported medication use for hypertension, diabetes, and dyslipidemia by comparison with health insurance claims among employees of large‐sized companies in Japan. Methods Participants were 61 676 participants of 13 large‐sized companies in Japan. Self‐reports on medication use were obtained through web‐ or paper‐based questionnaires conducted at the annual health checkup in fiscal year 2016. Health insurance claims for medication were obtained from corporate health insurance associations from April 1, 2016, to March 31, 2017. Agreement rate, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV), and kappa statistics of self‐reporting were examined for different reference periods (1‐, 2‐, and 3‐ months, and 1‐year). Subgroup analysis was conducted stratified by sex, age, body mass index, smoking, alcohol drinking, blood pressure, hemoglobin A1c, and low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol. Results Agreement, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were 0.98, 0.90, 0.98, 0.87, and 0.99 for hypertension, 0.99, 0.89, 1.00, 0.89, and 1.00 for diabetes, and 0.98, 0.86, 0.99, 0.83, and 0.99 for dyslipidemia, respectively, between self‐reports and claims data for 3 months. Kappa statistics were highest with the 3‐month reference period of claims data for hypertension, diabetes, and dyslipidemia. No major concordance was observed between the subgroups. Conclusion This validation of self‐reported medication use for hypertension, diabetes, and dyslipidemia showed almost perfect reliability among employees of large‐sized companies in Japan.

show abstract

Validity assessment of self-reported medication use by comparing to pharmacy insurance claims

Cited by 29 publications

References 14 publications

A systematic review of methods for determining cross‐sectional active medications using pharmacy databases

A systematic review of methods for determining cross‐sectional active medications using pharmacy databases

Research on Self Medication: A Hype or a Hope? A Literature Review.

Validation of self-reported medication use for hypertension, diabetes, and dyslipidemia among employees of large-sized companies in Japan

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About