Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T07:36:27.787Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Novel Compliance Assessment Technique: The Randomized Response Interview

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Brian E. Rittenhouse
Brian E. Rittenhouse
Affiliation:
Université de Montréal
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Changing compliance with medication directives can greatly affect health outcomes. To assess programs that influence compliance, accurate measurement of compliance is essential. All currently available methods are imperfect. This paper suggests a new method—the “randomized response interview”—along with a strategy for its implementation.

Type
General Essays
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 12 , Issue 3 , Summer 1996 , pp. 498 - 510
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.Aday, L. A.Designing and conducting health surveys. San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 1989.Google Scholar
2.Bradburn, N. M., & Sudman, S.Improving interview method and questionnaire design. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1981.Google Scholar
3.Col, N., Fanole, J. E., & Kronholm, P.The role of medication noncompliance and adverse drug reactions in hospitalizations of the elderly. Archives of Internal Medicine, 1990, 150, 841–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Cost of patient noncompliance in the U.S. Scrip, 1990 (06 15), 1523, 23.Google Scholar
5.Cramer, J., Scheyer, R. D., & Mattson, R. H.Compliance declines between physician visits. Archives of Internal Medicine, 1990, 150, 1509–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Cramer, J. A., Mattson, R. H., Prevey, M. L., et al. How often is medication taken as prescribed? A novel assessment technique. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1989, 261, 3273–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.DeGroot, M. H.Probability and statistics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1985.Google Scholar
8.Eisen, S. A. Developing more clinically meaningful definitions of medication compliance. In Cramer, J. & Spilker, B. (eds.), Patient compliance in medical practice and clinical trials. New York: Raven Press, 1991, 225–31.Google Scholar
9.Engstrom, F. W. Clinical correlates of antidepressant compliance. In Cramer, J. & Spilker, B. (eds.), Patient compliance in medical practice and clinical trials. New York: Raven Press, 1991, 187–94.Google Scholar
10.Feinstein, A.On white-coat effects and the electronic monitoring of compliance. Archives of Internal Medicine, 1990, 150, 1377–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Gordis, L., Markowitz, M., & Lilienfeld, A. M.The inaccuracy in using interviews to estimate patient reliability in taking medications at home. Medical Care, 1969, 7, 49–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Gordon, M. E., & Kass, M. A. Validity of standard compliance measures in glaucoma compared with an electronic eyedrop monitor. In Cramer, J. A. & Spilker, B. (eds.), Patient compliance in medical practice and clinical trials. New York: Raven Press, 1991, 163–73.Google Scholar
13.Hasford, J. Biometric issues in measuring and analyzing partial compliance in clinical trials. In Cramer, J. A. & Spilker, B. (eds.), Patient compliance in medical practice and clinical trials. New York: Raven Press, 1991, 265–81.Google Scholar
14.Haynes, R. B., Taylor, D. W., & Sackett, D. L.Compliance in health care. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979.Google Scholar
15.Iseman, M.Treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis. New England Journal of Medicine, 1993, 329, 784–91.Google ScholarPubMed
16.Krall, R. L. Interaction of compliance and patient safety. In Cramer, J. A. & Spilker, B. (eds.), Patient compliance in medical practice and clinical trials. New York: Raven Press, 1991, 19–25.Google Scholar
17.Lasagna, L., & Hutt, P. B. Health care, research, and regulatory impact of noncompliance. In Cramer, J. A. & Spilker, B. (eds.), Patient compliance in medical practice and clinical trials. New York: Raven Press, 1991, 393–403.Google Scholar
18.NARD Newsletter, 1991 (09 1), 114.Google Scholar
19.O'Brien, M. K., Petrie, K., & Raeburn, J.Adherence to medication regimens: Updating a complex medical issue. Medical Care Review, 1192, 49, 435–54.Google Scholar
20.Orwin, R. G., & Boruch, R. F.RRT meets RDD: Statistical strategies for assuring response privacy in telephone surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1982, 46, 550–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Pullar, T., Kimar, S., Tindall, H., et al. Time to stop counting the tablets? Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 1989, 46, 163–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.Riddiough, M. A., Willems, J. S., Sanders, C. R., et al. Factors affecting the use of vaccines: Considerations for immunization program planners. Public Health Report, 1981, 96, 528–35.Google ScholarPubMed
23.Rittenhouse, B. E.Respondent-specific information from the randomized response interview. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 1996, 49, 545–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24.Rosenstock, I. M., Derryberry, M., & Carriger, B. K. Why people fail to seek poliomyelitis vaccination. Public Health Report, 1959, 98–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25.Rudd, P., Ahmed, S., Zachary, V., et al. Antihypertensive drug trials: Contributions from medication monitors. In Cramer, J. A. & Spilker, B. (eds.), Patient compliance in medical practice and clinical trials. New York: Raven Press, 1991, 283–99.Google Scholar
26.Rudd, P., Ahmed, S., Zachary, V., et al. Improved compliance measures: application in an ambulatory hypertensive drug trial. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 1990, 48, 675–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27.Stiglitz, J. E.Economics of the public sector. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1988.Google Scholar
28.Tracy, P. E., & Fox, J. A.The validity of randomized response for sensitive measurements. American Sociology Review, 1981, 46, 187–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29.Urquhart, J.Highlights of the DIA workshop: Impact of partial compliance on clinical trials. Compliance, 1990, 2, 1–3.Google Scholar
30.Warner, S. L.Randomized response: A survey technique for eliminating evasive answer bias. American Statistical Association Journal, 1965, X (03), 63–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31.Zdep, S. M., & Rhodes, I. N.Making the randomized response technique work. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1976, 40, 531–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar