Assessing the performance of group-based trajectory modeling method to discover different patterns of medication adherence.

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q4 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Pharmaceutical Statistics Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-08 DOI:10.1002/pst.2365
Awa Diop, Alind Gupta, Sabrina Mueller, Louis Dron, Ofir Harari, Heather Berringer, Vinusha Kalatharan, Jay J H Park, Miceline Mésidor, Denis Talbot
{"title":"Assessing the performance of group-based trajectory modeling method to discover different patterns of medication adherence.","authors":"Awa Diop, Alind Gupta, Sabrina Mueller, Louis Dron, Ofir Harari, Heather Berringer, Vinusha Kalatharan, Jay J H Park, Miceline Mésidor, Denis Talbot","doi":"10.1002/pst.2365","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>It is well known that medication adherence is critical to patient outcomes and can decrease patient mortality. The Pharmacy Quality Alliance (PQA) has recognized and identified medication adherence as an important indicator of medication-use quality. Hence, there is a need to use the right methods to assess medication adherence. The PQA has endorsed the proportion of days covered (PDC) as the primary method of measuring adherence. Although easy to calculate, the PDC has however several drawbacks as a method of measuring adherence. PDC is a deterministic approach that cannot capture the complexity of a dynamic phenomenon. Group-based trajectory modeling (GBTM) is increasingly proposed as an alternative to capture heterogeneity in medication adherence. The main goal of this paper is to demonstrate, through a simulation study, the ability of GBTM to capture treatment adherence when compared to its deterministic PDC analogue and to the nonparametric longitudinal K-means. A time-varying treatment was generated as a quadratic function of time, baseline, and time-varying covariates. Three trajectory models are considered combining a cat's cradle effect, and a rainbow effect. The performance of GBTM was compared to the PDC and longitudinal K-means using the absolute bias, the variance, the c-statistics, the relative bias, and the relative variance. For all explored scenarios, we find that GBTM performed better in capturing different patterns of medication adherence with lower relative bias and variance even under model misspecification than PDC and longitudinal K-means.</p>","PeriodicalId":19934,"journal":{"name":"Pharmaceutical Statistics","volume":" ","pages":"511-529"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pharmaceutical Statistics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pst.2365","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

It is well known that medication adherence is critical to patient outcomes and can decrease patient mortality. The Pharmacy Quality Alliance (PQA) has recognized and identified medication adherence as an important indicator of medication-use quality. Hence, there is a need to use the right methods to assess medication adherence. The PQA has endorsed the proportion of days covered (PDC) as the primary method of measuring adherence. Although easy to calculate, the PDC has however several drawbacks as a method of measuring adherence. PDC is a deterministic approach that cannot capture the complexity of a dynamic phenomenon. Group-based trajectory modeling (GBTM) is increasingly proposed as an alternative to capture heterogeneity in medication adherence. The main goal of this paper is to demonstrate, through a simulation study, the ability of GBTM to capture treatment adherence when compared to its deterministic PDC analogue and to the nonparametric longitudinal K-means. A time-varying treatment was generated as a quadratic function of time, baseline, and time-varying covariates. Three trajectory models are considered combining a cat's cradle effect, and a rainbow effect. The performance of GBTM was compared to the PDC and longitudinal K-means using the absolute bias, the variance, the c-statistics, the relative bias, and the relative variance. For all explored scenarios, we find that GBTM performed better in capturing different patterns of medication adherence with lower relative bias and variance even under model misspecification than PDC and longitudinal K-means.

评估基于群体的轨迹建模方法在发现不同服药模式方面的性能。
众所周知,坚持用药对患者的治疗效果至关重要,并能降低患者死亡率。药房质量联盟 (PQA) 已将用药依从性视为衡量用药质量的一项重要指标。因此,有必要使用正确的方法来评估用药依从性。PQA 已认可将覆盖天数比例 (PDC) 作为衡量用药依从性的主要方法。尽管 PDC 易于计算,但作为一种衡量用药依从性的方法,它也有一些缺点。PDC 是一种确定性方法,无法捕捉动态现象的复杂性。基于群体的轨迹建模(GBTM)被越来越多地提出,作为捕捉服药依从性异质性的替代方法。本文的主要目的是通过模拟研究,展示 GBTM 与确定性 PDC 类似方法和非参数纵向 K-means 相比,捕捉治疗依从性的能力。随时间变化的治疗方法是由时间、基线和随时间变化的协变量构成的二次函数。考虑了三种轨迹模型,包括猫的摇篮效应和彩虹效应。使用绝对偏差、方差、c 统计量、相对偏差和相对方差对 GBTM 的性能与 PDC 和纵向 K-means 进行了比较。我们发现,与 PDC 和纵向 K-means相比,GBTM 在所有探讨的情况下都能更好地捕捉不同的服药模式,即使在模型错配的情况下,其相对偏差和方差也较低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Pharmaceutical Statistics
Pharmaceutical Statistics 医学-统计学与概率论
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
6.70%
发文量
90
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Pharmaceutical Statistics is an industry-led initiative, tackling real problems in statistical applications. The Journal publishes papers that share experiences in the practical application of statistics within the pharmaceutical industry. It covers all aspects of pharmaceutical statistical applications from discovery, through pre-clinical development, clinical development, post-marketing surveillance, consumer health, production, epidemiology, and health economics. The Journal is both international and multidisciplinary. It includes high quality practical papers, case studies and review papers.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信