IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0056247.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison between Two Generic Questionnaires to Assess Satisfaction with Medication in Chronic Diseases

Author

Listed:
  • Stéphanie Delestras
  • Matthieu Roustit
  • Pierrick Bedouch
  • Mélanie Minoves
  • Valérie Dobremez
  • Roseline Mazet
  • Audrey Lehmann
  • Magalie Baudrant
  • Benoît Allenet

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this work was to compare two generic questionnaires assessing patients’ satisfaction with medication. In addition we tested whether satisfaction can predict adherence to medication regimens in patients with chronic diseases, and which dimensions of satisfaction are most involved. Methods: This prospective, observational study was conducted over one year in a heterogeneous population of patients with various chronic diseases. Satisfaction with medication was assessed by using the TSQM® vII and the SatMed-Q® questionnaires, and adherence to treatment was assessed with the Morisky-Green questionnaire. Clinical pharmacists interviewed patients to collect clinical, demographic and therapeutic data. Results: 190 patients were enrolled. Both questionnaires showed excellent reliability and correlation was high (R = 0.70; p

Suggested Citation

  • Stéphanie Delestras & Matthieu Roustit & Pierrick Bedouch & Mélanie Minoves & Valérie Dobremez & Roseline Mazet & Audrey Lehmann & Magalie Baudrant & Benoît Allenet, 2013. "Comparison between Two Generic Questionnaires to Assess Satisfaction with Medication in Chronic Diseases," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(2), pages 1-6, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0056247
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0056247
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0056247
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0056247&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0056247?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0056247. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.