Measuring Medication Adherence

Are Missed Doses Reported More Accurately Then Perfect Adherence?

Published in: AIDS Care, v. 12, no. 4, 2000, p. 405-408

Posted on on January 01, 2000

by Glenn Wagner, Judith Godwin Rabkin

Read More

Access further information on this document at

This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.

Self-reports overestimate adherence compared to more objective measures such as electronic monitoring. However, self-report is the most feasible method for clinical settings; therefore, it is important to identify the context in which this method can provide an accurate assessment. To address whether self-reports are more accurate when missed doses are reported, the authors conducted a secondary analysis of data from a methodological study comparing multiple measures of adherence (including self-report and electronic monitoring to a two-week placebo regimen mimicking HAART among 30 HIV-positive patients not on HAART. Results indicated a mean adherence of 85% and 62%, as measured by se4f-report and electronic monitoring respectively. Self-report and electronic monitoring were not significantly correlated in the measurement of proportion of prescribed doses taken among the sub-group of 17 patients who reported missed doses (r = 0. 22), nor among those who reported no missed doses, or the group as a whole. Using electronic monitoring as the validity criterion, these findings indicate that self-reports overestimate adherence even among patients who report missed doses.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation External publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

Our mission to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behavior. To help ensure our research and analysis are rigorous, objective, and nonpartisan, we subject our research publications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance process; avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conflicts of interest through staff training, project screening, and a policy of mandatory disclosure; and pursue transparency in our research engagements through our commitment to the open publication of our research findings and recommendations, disclosure of the source of funding of published research, and policies to ensure intellectual independence. For more information, visit

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.