Dataset Information

Adaptation and validation of simple tools to screen and monitor for oral PrEP adherence.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Oral, vaginal and other pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) products for HIV prevention are in various stages of development. Low adherence poses a serious challenge to successful evaluation in trials. In a previous study, we developed tools to screen for general adherence and specifically monitor intravaginal ring adherence within the context of HIV prevention clinical trials. This study aimed to further validate the screening tool and to adapt and provide initial psychometric validation for an oral pill monitoring tool.

Materials and methods

We administered a cross-sectional survey between June and October 2018 at a trial site located near Cape Town, South Africa, and another in Thika, Kenya, with 193 women who had experience using daily oral pills. We fit confirmatory factor analysis models on the screening tool items to assess our previously-hypothesized subscale structure. We conducted an exploratory factor analysis of oral PrEP monitoring items to determine the underlying subscale structure. We then assessed the construct validity of each tool by comparing subscales against each other within the current sample and against our original sample, from a study conducted in four sites in South Africa, including Cape Town.

Results

The screening tool structure showed moderate evidence of construct validity. As a whole, the tool performed in a similar way to the original sample. The monitoring tool items, which were revised to assess perceptions about and experiences using daily oral PrEP, factored into five subscales that showed moderate to good reliability. Four of the five subscales had a similar structure overall to the vaginal ring monitoring tool from which they were adapted.

Conclusions

Accurate measurement of HIV-prevention product adherence is of critical importance to the assessment of product efficacy and safety in clinical trials, and the support of safe and effective product use in non-trial settings. In this study, we provide further validation for these measures, demonstrating the screening tool's utility in additional populations and adapting the monitoring tool's utility for different HIV-prevention products.

SUBMITTER: Zissette S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8158999 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background & aimsGuidelines suggest endoscopic screening of individuals who are at increased risk for Barrett's esophagus (BE) and esophageal adenocarcinoma. Tools based on clinical factors are available for identifying patients at risk, but only some have been validated. We aimed to compare and validate available tools.MethodsWe performed a prospective study of 1241 patients, ages 40 to 79 years, presenting either for their first esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) or their first endoscopic therapy of early neoplastic BE, from April 2015 through June 2018. We calculated risk scores for 6 previously published tools (the Gerson, Locke, Thrift, Michigan BE pREdiction Tool [M-BERET], Nord-Trøndelag Health Study [HUNT], and Kunzmann tools). We also investigated the accuracy of frequency and duration of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), using data from a randomly selected 50% of patients undergoing their first EGD. We compared the ability of all these tools to discriminate patients with BE and early neoplasia from patients without BE, using findings from endoscopy as the reference standard.ResultsBE was detected in 81 of 1152 patients during their first EGD (7.0%). GERD symptoms alone identified patients with BE with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AuROC) of 0.579. All of the tools were more accurate in identifying patients with BE than the frequency and duration of GERD (AuROC for GERD, 0.579 vs range for other tools, 0.660-0.695), and predicted risk correlated well with observed risk (calibration). The AUROCs of the HUNT tool (0.796), the M-BERET (0.773), and the Kunzmann tool (0.763) were comparable in discriminating between patients with early neoplasia (n = 94) vs no BE. Each tool was more accurate in discriminating BE with early neoplasia than GERD frequency and duration alone (AuROC, 0.667; P < .01).ConclusionsThe HUNT, M-BERET, and Kunzmann tools identify patients with BE with AuROC values ranging from 0.665 to 0.695, and discriminate patients with early neoplasia from patients without BE with AuROC values ranging from 0.763 to 0.796. These tools are more accurate than frequency and duration of GERD in identifying individuals at risk for neoplastic BE.

Project description:BackgroundChildren are more vulnerable to adverse drug reactions (ADRs) due to complex changes in the body during the growth process and lack specific pharmacoepidemiologic studies. Causality and Avoidability assessment of ADRs are relevant to clinical guidelines development and pharmacovigilance. This study aimed to translate and transcultural adapt two new tools-Liverpool Causality Assessment Tool (LCAT) and the Liverpool Avoidability Assessment Tool (LAAT)-to Brazilian-Portuguese and evaluate the psychometric properties of these tools to analyse ADRs in Brazilian children.MethodsThe validation of the cross-cultural adaptation of tools was obtained by the functional (conceptual, semantic, operational, and measurement) equivalence between the original and translated versions of each instrument. The translated version of LCAT and LAAT was applied to assessing the twenty-six case reports of suspected adverse drug reactions in a Brazilian teaching paediatric hospital. The inter-rater reliability (a pharmacist and a physician) was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha. The exact agreement percentages (%EA) and extreme disagreement (%ED) were computed. Overall Kappa index was calculated with a 95% confidence interval.ResultsThere was a need to modify some terms translated into Portuguese for semantic and conceptual equivalence. The Cronbach's alpha coefficient values obtained were 0.95 and 0.85, and the weighted Kappa (95% confidence interval) were 0.82 (0.67-0.97) and 0.68 (0.45-0.91) for LCAT and LAAT, respectively. The Brazilian-Portuguese versions of the LCAT and LAAT showed reliable and valid tools for the diagnosis and follow-up of ADRs in children.ConclusionThe methodological approach allowed the translation, transcultural adaptation, and validation to Brazilian-Portuguese of two easy and quick to perform tools for causality and avoidability of ADRs in children by a multidisciplinary expert specialist committee, including the authors of original tools. We believe these versions may be applied by professionals (patient safety teams) and researchers in Brazil in groups or by a single reviewer.Trial registrationThis study was evaluated and approved by the Research Ethics Committee (Instituto de Pediatria e Puericultura Martagão Gesteira - Federal University of Rio de Janeiro - Number: 3.264.238.