PDF herunterladen
Hamostaseologie 2020; 40(05): 621-630
DOI: 10.1055/a-1249-4645
Original Article

Evaluation of the U.S. Adherence Questionnaires VERITAS-PRO and VERITAS-PRN for Use in Patients with Hemophilia in the German Healthcare System

Sylvia von Mackensen
1   Department of Medical Psychology, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
,
Yves Douma
2   GZRR – Gerinnungszentrum Rhein-Ruhr, Duisburg, Germany
,
Susan Halimeh
2   GZRR – Gerinnungszentrum Rhein-Ruhr, Duisburg, Germany
› Institutsangaben
› Weitere Informationen
Auch verfügbar auf
   Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Aim Since the U.S. adherence instruments VERITAS-PRO and VERITAS-PRN were developed in another healthcare system, we assumed that they are not appropriate for the German solidarity healthcare system. This study aims to evaluate the relevance of these instruments for the German healthcare system both by people with hemophilia (PWH) and by healthcare professionals (HCP).

Methods A total of 50 PWH (23 adult hemophilia patients and 27 parents of children with hemophilia) and 25 HCP rated the relevance of the single items of the VERITAS-PRO and VERITAS-PRN on a 5-point Likert scale. In addition, both groups were asked to make suggestions for additional adherence questions. To investigate the relevance of these instruments, the accordance between the raters' evaluations was determined calculating the content validity index (CVI) and the content validity ratio (CVR) based on the critical values of the CVR (CVRcritical) to exclude chance and subjectivity.

Results CVI (CVR) calculations revealed three (5) “very important” items for PWH and six (11) items for HCP. Only two (3) “very important” items were evaluated by both groups. Four domains were considered not important by both groups. Six PWH made 14 suggestions and 14 HCP made 24 suggestions for additional adherence questions.

Conclusion VERITAS-PRO and VERITAS-PRN have only very limited benefits for the German healthcare system. Since nonadherence has a great impact on the morbidity of PWH and on the costs for the healthcare system, there is a need for adherence instruments that are adapted to the specific needs of PWH in the German healthcare system.

Zusammenfassung

Ziel Der Umstand, dass die Adhärenz-Messinstrumente VERITAS-PRO und VERITAS- PRN für das US-amerikanische Gesundheitssystem entwickelt wurden, lässt vermuten, dass sie im solidarisch finanzierten deutschen Gesundheitssystem nur eingeschränkten Nutzen haben. Diese Studie zielt darauf ab, die Relevanz der beiden Instrumente für das deutsche Gesundheitssystem sowohl von Personen mit Hämophilie (PWH) als auch von Angehörigen der Gesundheitsberufe (HCP) evaluieren zu lassen.

Methoden 50 PWH (23 erwachsene Hämophilie-Patienten und 27 Eltern von Kindern mit Hämophilie) und 25 HCP bewerteten die Relevanz der einzelnen VERITAS-PRO und VERITAS-PRN-Items auf einer 5-Punkt-Likert-Skala. Darüber hinaus wurden beide Gruppen gebeten, Vorschläge für zusätzliche Fragen zur Messung von Adhärenz zu machen. Um die Relevanz dieser Instrumente zu bestimmen, wurde die Übereinstimmung zwischen den Expertenurteilen anhand des Inhaltsvaliditäts-Indexes (CVI) und des Inhaltsvaliditäts-Verhältnisses (CVR) basierend auf den kritischen CVR-Werten (CVRcritical) berechnet, um somit Zufall und Subjektivität ausschließen zu können.

Ergebnisse CVI (CVR) Berechnungen ergaben drei (5) „sehr wichtige“ Items für PWH und sechs (11) Items für HCP. Nur zwei (3) Items wurden von beiden Gruppen als „sehr wichtig“ bewertet. Vier Domänen wurden von beiden Gruppen als nicht wichtig erachtet. Sechs PWH machten 14 und vierzehn HCP machten 24 Vorschläge für zusätzliche Adhärenz-Fragen.

Konklusion Im deutschen Gesundheitssystem haben der VERITAS-PRO und der VERITAS-PRN nur sehr eingeschränkten Nutzen. Da Nicht-Adhärenz deutlich negative Effekte sowohl auf die Morbidität der PWH als auch auf die Kostenentwicklung im deutschen Gesundheitssystem hat, gibt es einen Bedarf an Adhärenz-Messinstrumenten, die an die spezifischen Bedürfnisse von PWH im deutschen Gesundheitssystem angepasst sind.

Keywords

hemophilia - adherence - assessment - VERITAS-PRO - VERITAS-PRN

Schlüsselwörter

Hämophilie - Adhärenz - Erfassung - VERITAS-PRO - VERITAS-PRN

Authors' Contributions

Sylvia von Mackensen (S.v.M.) and Susan Halimeh (S.H.) were involved in the planning of the project. S.v.M. analyzed the data; S.H. was involved in patient recruitment. S.v.M. and Yves Douma (Y.D.) wrote the first draft of the manuscript. S.H. reviewed the results and gave relevant input during the review of the manuscript. All authors revised and agreed upon the final version of the manuscript.


Conflict of Interest

S.v.M. received an unrestricted educational grant from Swedish Orphan Biovitrum Germany to conduct this research. The other authors have nothing to disclose.




Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 01. Juni 2020

Angenommen: 28. August 2020

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
21. Oktober 2020

© 2020. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Sabaté E. Adherence to Long-Term Therapies: Evidence for Action. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2003 . Accessed March 30, 2020 at: https://www.who.int/chp/knowledge/publications/adherence_Section1.pdf?ua=1
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Vermeire E, Hearnshaw H, Van Royen P, Denekens J. Patient adherence to treatment: three decades of research. A comprehensive review. J Clin Pharm Ther 2001; 26 (05) 331-342
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Gordis L. Conceptual and methodologic problems in measuring patient compliance. In: Haynes B, Taylor DW, Sackett DL. eds. Compliance in Health Care. Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press; 1979: 23-45
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Donovan JL, Blake DR. Patient non-compliance: deviance or reasoned decision-making?. Soc Sci Med 1992; 34 (05) 507-513
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Khair K. Compliance, concordance and adherence: what are we talking about?. Haemophilia 2014; 20 (05) 601-603
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Saxena K. Barriers and perceived limitations to early treatment of hemophilia. J Blood Med 2013; 4: 49-56
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Resseguier N, Rosso-Delsemme N, Beltran Anzola A. et al. Determinants of adherence and consequences of the transition from adolescence to adulthood among young people with severe haemophilia (TRANSHEMO): study protocol for a multicentric French national observational cross-sectional study. BMJ Open 2018; 8 (07) e022409
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Mannucci PM, Nobili A, Marchesini E. et al. Rate and appropriateness of polypharmacy in older patients with hemophilia compared with age-matched controls. Haemophilia 2018; 24 (05) 726-732
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Thornburg CD, Duncan NA. Treatment adherence in hemophilia. Patient Prefer Adherence 2017; 11: 1677-1686
    Google Scholar
  • 10 McLaughlin JM, Witkop ML, Lambing A, Anderson TL, Munn J, Tortella B. Better adherence to prescribed treatment regimen is related to less chronic pain among adolescents and young adults with moderate or severe haemophilia. Haemophilia 2014; 20 (04) 506-512
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Krishnan S, Vietri J, Furlan R, Duncan N. Adherence to prophylaxis is associated with better outcomes in moderate and severe haemophilia: results of a patient survey. Haemophilia 2015; 21 (01) 64-70
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Thornburg CD. Physicians' perceptions of adherence to prophylactic clotting factor infusions. Haemophilia 2008; 14 (01) 25-29
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Miesbach W, Kalnins W. Adherence to prophylactic treatment in patients with haemophilia in Germany. Haemophilia 2016; 22 (05) e367-e374
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Negrier C. The Portal for rare diseases and orphan drugs. Hemophilia. 2009 . Accessed March 30, 2020 at: https://www.orpha.net/consor/cgi-bin/OC_Exp.php?Lng=EN&Expert=448
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Rode J. Rare diseases: Understanding this public health priority. 2005 . Accessed March 30, 2020 at: https://www.eurordis.org/IMG/pdf/princeps_document-EN.pdf
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Mannucci PM, Tuddenham EG. The hemophilias--from royal genes to gene therapy. N Engl J Med 2001; 344 (23) 1773-1779
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 O'Hara J, Hughes D, Camp C, Burke T, Carroll L, Diego DG. The cost of severe haemophilia in Europe: the CHESS study. Orphanet J Rare Dis 2017; 12 (01) 106
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Hacker MR, Geraghty S, Manco-Johnson M. Barriers to compliance with prophylaxis therapy in haemophilia. Haemophilia 2001; 7 (04) 392-396
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Anghel LA, Farcas AM, Oprean RN. An overview of the common methods used to measure treatment adherence. Med Pharm Rep 2019; 92 (02) 117-122
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Guedes VG, Corrente JE, Farrugia A, Thomas S, Wachholz PA, de Oliveira Vidal EI. Comparing objective and self-reported measures of adherence in haemophilia. Haemophilia 2019; 25 (05) 821-830
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Ho S, Gue D, McIntosh K, Bucevska M, Yang M, Jackson S. An objective method for assessing adherence to prophylaxis in adults with severe haemophilia. Haemophilia 2014; 20 (01) 39-43
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Lamiani G, Strada I, Mancuso ME, Coppola A, Vegni E, Moja EA. Pro-Adherence Study Group. Factors influencing illness representations and perceived adherence in haemophilic patients: a pilot study. Haemophilia 2015; 21 (05) 598-604
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Duncan N, Kronenberger W, Roberson C, Shapiro A. VERITAS-Pro: a new measure of adherence to prophylactic regimens in haemophilia. Haemophilia 2010; 16 (02) 247-255
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Duncan NA, Kronenberger WG, Roberson CP, Shapiro AD. VERITAS-PRN: a new measure of adherence to episodic treatment regimens in haemophilia. Haemophilia 2010; 16 (01) 47-53
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Oldenburg J, Hay CRM, Jiménez-Yuste V. et al. Design of a prospective observational study on the effectiveness and real-world usage of recombinant factor VIII Fc (rFVIIIFc) compared with conventional products in haemophilia A: the A-SURE study. BMJ Open 2019; 9 (05) e028012
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Di Minno G, Santagostino E, Morfini M. et al. Patient satisfaction and acceptability of an on-demand and on-prophylaxis device for factor VIII delivery in patients with hemophilia A. Patient Prefer Adherence 2019; 13: 233-240
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Lock J, Raat H, Duncan N. et al. Adherence to treatment in a Western European paediatric population with haemophilia: reliability and validity of the VERITAS-Pro scale. Haemophilia 2014; 20 (05) 616-623
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Cuesta-Barriuso R, Torres-Ortuño A, Galindo-Piñana P, Nieto-Munuera J, Duncan N, López-Pina JA. Validation of the VERITAS-Pro treatment adherence scale in a Spanish sample population with hemophilia. Patient Prefer Adherence 2017; 11: 653-660
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Ferreira AA, Leite ICG, Duncan NA. Validation of the Brazilian version of the VERITAS-Pro scale to assess adherence to prophylactic regimens in hemophilia. Rev Bras Hematol Hemoter 2018; 40 (01) 18-24
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Bérubé S, Rondeau É, Sultan S. Measuring adherence in pediatric hemophilia patients: French-language adaptation of the VERITAS-Pro and VERITAS-PRN and psychometric properties, Cogent Med. 2019 6. 01
    Google Scholar
  • 31 Alvi Y, Khalique N, Ahmad A, Khan HS, Faizi N. World Health Organization dimensions of adherence to antiretroviral therapy: a study at Antiretroviral Therapy Centre, Aligarh. Indian J Community Med 2019; 44 (02) 118-124
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 von Mackensen S, Halimeh S. Assessment of adherence in haemophilia patients - evaluation of an US instrument and development of a new questionnaire for use in Germany. HemaSphere 2018; 2 (01) 661
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Gilbert GE, Prion S. Making sense of methods and measurement: Lawshe's content validity index. Clin Simul Nurs 2016; 12: 530-531
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Davis LL. Instrument review: getting the most from your panel of experts. Appl Nurs Res 1992; 5: 194-197
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Lawshe CH. A quantitative approach to content validity. Person Psychol 1975; 28: 563-575
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Polit DF, Beck CT. The content validity index: are you sure you know what's being reported? Critique and recommendations. Res Nurs Health 2006; 29 (05) 489-497
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Ayre C, Scally AJ. Critical values for Lawshe's Content Validity Ratio. Revisiting the original methods of calculation. Meas Eval Couns Dev 2014; 47 (01) 79-86
    Google Scholar
  • 38 Paneri V, Aikat R. Development of the ‘Perceived Sexual Distress Scale-Hindi’ for measuring sexual distress following spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord 2014; 52 (09) 712-716
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Rodrigues IB, Adachi JD, Beattie KA, MacDermid JC. Development and validation of a new tool to measure the facilitators, barriers and preferences to exercise in people with osteoporosis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2017; 18 (01) 540
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Propp R, McAdam L, Davis AM. et al. Development and content validation of the Muscular Dystrophy Child Health Index of Life with Disabilities questionnaire for children with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Dev Med Child Neurol 2019; 61 (01) 75-81
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Caruso R, Arrigoni C, Groppelli K. et al. Italian version of Dyspnoea-12: cultural-linguistic validation, quantitative and qualitative content validity study. Acta Biomed 2018; 88 (04) 426-434
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Didarloo A, Akhgar M, Moghaddam-Tabrizi F, Gharaaghaji R, Sheikhi S. Psychometric properties of the Iranian version of Champion's Revised Health Belief Model Scale for Breast Cancer screening. Iran J Nurs Midwifery Res 2020; 25 (02) 146-153
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Seuser A, Djambas Khayat C, Negrier C, Sabbour A, Heijnen L. Evaluation of early musculoskeletal disease in patients with haemophilia: results from an expert consensus. Blood Coagul Fibrinolysis 2018; 29 (06) 509-520
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Iowa Hemophilia Advisory Committee. Report to the governor and general assembly 2009. 2010 . Accessed March 30, 2020 at: https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/publications/DF/10167.pdf
    Google Scholar
  • 45 Blankenship CS. To manage costs of hemophilia, patients need more than clotting factor. Biotechnol Healthc 2008; 5 (04) 37-40
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Glossary. Lifetime Limit. Accessed March 30, 2020 at: https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/life-time-limit/
    Google Scholar