Correction for errors in measuring adherence to prenatal multivitamin/mineral supplement use among low-income women

Sunitha Jasti1, Anna Maria Siega-Riz, Mary E Cogswell

  • 1Department of Family, Nutrition and Exercise Sciences, Queens College of City University of New York, Flushing, NY 11367, USA. sunitha_jasti@qc.edu

The Journal of Nutrition
|January 21, 2006
PubMed

Adherence to prenatal multivitamin/mineral supplement use is often measured by self-reports or pill counts. Although both measures were shown to overestimate adherence, measurement error is rarely considered. In this study, we examined measurement error in adherence to prenatal supplement use among pregnant women and demonstrated a calibration method to adjust for error. In a validation subsample (n=51) from a larger clinical study of supplementation, adherence was assessed by self-reports, pill counts, and a Medication Event Monitoring System (MEMS) bottle cap that recorded the date and time of each opening of the pill bottle. Mean adherence in the validation sample as measured by the MEMS (the gold standard) was 68%; thus, adherence measured by self-report (77%) and pill count (84%) reflected overestimation. The Pearson correlation coefficients of self-reports and pill counts to MEMS were 0.35 and 0.62, respectively. When adherence was defined as taking >or=75% of the pills prescribed, sensitivity and specificity were greater for pill counts (93 and 52%, respectively) than for self-reports (88 and 44%). The regression coefficient for pill count adherence from a linear regression on MEMS adherence was applied to pill counts from a larger sample (n=244). The adjustment significantly lowered the estimate of adherence from 74 to 64% (P<0.001) in this larger sample. In conclusion, our data show that both self-reports and pill counts overestimate adherence and that linear regression in comparison to an external standard such as MEMS can be used to correct for measurement error in adherence.

Related Concept Videos

Errors occurring during blood pressure monitoring01:25

Errors occurring during blood pressure monitoring

Blood pressure monitoring is a crucial clinical procedure in diagnosing and managing various cardiovascular conditions. Despite its significance, the accuracy of blood pressure measurements can be compromised by multiple factors, potentially leading to either falsely high or low readings. These inaccuracies are critical as they can significantly impact patient care. So, it is vital to understand these challenges deeply and adopt strategic approaches to minimize errors.
Several factors...
Regression Toward the Mean01:52

Regression Toward the Mean

Regression toward the mean (“RTM”) is a phenomenon in which extremely high or low values—for example, and individual’s blood pressure at a particular moment—appear closer to a group’s average upon remeasuring. Although this statistical peculiarity is the result of random error and chance, it has been problematic across various medical, scientific, financial and psychological applications. In particular, RTM, if not taken into account, can interfere when researchers try to extrapolate results...
Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling Errors01:15

Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling Errors

In the case of systematic errors, the sources can be identified, and the errors can be subsequently minimized by addressing these sources. According to the source, systematic errors can be divided into sampling, instrumental, methodological, and personal errors.
Sampling errors originate from improper sampling methods or the wrong sample population. These errors can be minimized by refining the sampling strategy. Defective instruments or faulty calibrations are the sources of instrumental...