↓ Skip to main content

Medication Adherence: Tailoring the Analysis to the Data

Overview of attention for article published in AIDS and Behavior, August 2011
Altmetric Badge

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 Mendeley
Title
Medication Adherence: Tailoring the Analysis to the Data
Published in
AIDS and Behavior, August 2011
DOI 10.1007/s10461-011-9951-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Parya Saberi, Mallory O. Johnson, Charles E. McCulloch, Eric Vittinghoff, Torsten B. Neilands

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to explore more comprehensive methods to analyze antiretroviral non-adherence data. Using illustrative data and simulations, we investigated the value of using binary logistic regression (LR; dichotomized at 0% non-adherence) versus a hurdle model (combination of LR plus generalized linear model for >0% non-adherence) versus a zero-inflated negative binomial (ZINB) model (simultaneously modeling 0% non-adherence and >0% non-adherence). In simulation studies, the hurdle and ZINB models had similar power but both had higher power in comparison to LR alone. The hurdle model had higher power than ZINB in settings where covariate effects were restricted to one or the other part of the model (0% non-adherence or degree of non-adherence). Use of the hurdle and ZINB models are powerful and valuable approaches in analyzing adherence data which yield a more complete picture than LR alone. We recommend adoption of this methodology for future antiretroviral adherence research.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 40 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 27%
Student > Master 6 15%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Professor 2 5%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 5%
Other 7 17%
Unknown 9 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 7%
Psychology 3 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Decision Sciences 2 5%
Other 11 27%
Unknown 11 27%