METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, the 15-item MAR-Scale was administered to 665 patients with hypertension who attended one of the four government primary healthcare clinics in the Hulu Langat and Klang districts of Selangor, Malaysia, between early December 2012 and end-March 2013. The construct validity was examined in two phases. Phase I consisted of translation of the MAR-Scale from English to Malay, a content validity check by an expert panel, a face validity check via a small preliminary test among patients with hypertension, and exploratory factor analysis (EFA). Phase II involved internal consistency reliability calculations and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).
RESULTS: EFA verified five existing factors that were previously identified (i.e. issues with medication management, multiple medications, belief in medication, medication availability, and the patient's forgetfulness and convenience), while CFA extracted four factors (medication availability issues were not extracted). The final modified MAR-Scale model, which had 11 items and a four-factor structure, provided good evidence of convergent and discriminant validities. Cronbach's alpha coefficient was > 0.7, indicating good internal consistency of the items in the construct. The results suggest that the modified MAR-Scale has good internal consistencies and construct validity.
CONCLUSION: The validated modified MAR-Scale (Malaysian version) was found to be suitable for use among patients with hypertension receiving treatment in primary healthcare settings. However, the comprehensive measurement of other factors that can also lead to non-adherence requires further exploration.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey conducted between April and May 2017.
SETTING: Forty public clinics in Malaysia.
PARTICIPANTS: A total of 956 adult patients with T2D and/or hypertension were interviewed.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient experience on SMS was evaluated using a structured questionnaire of the short version Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care instrument, PACIC-M11. Linear regression analysis adjusting for complex survey design was used to determine the association of patient and clinic factors with PACIC-M11 scores.
RESULTS: The overall PACIC-M11 mean was 2.3(SD,0.8) out of maximum of 5. The subscales' mean scores were lowest for patient activation (2.1(SD,1.1)) and highest for delivery system design/decision support (2.9(SD,0.9)). Overall PACIC-M11 score was associated with age, educational level and ethnicity. Higher overall PACIC-M11 ratings was observed with increasing difference between actual and expected consultation duration [β = 0.01; 95% CI (0.001, 0.03)]. Better scores were also observed among patients who would recommend the clinic to friends and family [β = 0.19; 95% CI (0.03, 0.36)], when health providers were able to explain things in ways that were easy to understand [β = 0.34; 95% CI (0.10, 0.59)] and knew about patients' living conditions [β = 0.31; 95% CI (0.15, 0.47)].
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicated patients received low levels of SMS. PACIC-M11 ratings were associated with age, ethnicity, educational level, difference between actual and expected consultation length, willingness to recommend the clinic and provider communication skills.