Search

Background: Poor adherence habits are key contributors to nonadherence but there are few clinically feasible methods for evaluating adherence habits, particularly for youths with chronic kidney disease (CKD). This study investigated how participants' qualitative responses to three interview questions about adherence habits mapped to primary principles of habit formation and objectively measured medication adherence in youths with CKD. Methods: Participants (ages 11–21 years) were recruited from a pediatric nephrology clinic as part of a larger study. Participants' daily objective antihypertensive medication adherence was measured with an electronic pill bottle over a 4-week baseline period. Qualitative interviews about adherence habits and routines were conducted with a subset of participants (N = 18). Results: Clear qualitative differences emerged in how participants with high-medium adherence (80–100%) discussed adherence habits compared to participants with low adherence (0–79%). Participants with high-medium adherence discussed situational cues for taking medicine, including locations that cue adherence, step-by-step events leading up to taking medicine, and people who cue adherence. Participants with high-medium adherence regularly described taking medicine as "automatic," "second nature," and a "habit." Participants with low adherence rarely discussed these habit features nor did they explicitly acknowledge currently missing doses. Participants with low adherence tended to discuss challenges with organization and routines for taking medicine. Conclusions: Evaluating patient responses to questions about adherence habits may uncover challenges with adherence habit formation, provide direction for habit-strengthening intervention focused on developing automatic cues for taking medication, and support adherence successes for youths with CKD. Clinical trial registration number: NCT03651596. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This study aimed to compare attended home blood pressure (BP) measurements (HBPM) with ambulatory BP monitor (ABPM) readings and examine if level of agreement between measurement modalities differs overall and by subgroup. Methods: This was a secondary analysis of data from a 2-year, multicenter observational study of children 11–19 years (mean 15, SD = 2.7) with chronic kidney disease. Participants had 3 standardized resting oscillometric home BPs taken by staff followed by 24-h ABPM within 2 weeks of home BP. BP indices (measured BP/95%ile BP) were calculated for mean triplicate attended HBPM and mean ABPM measurements. Paired HBPM and ABPM measurements taken during any of 5 study visits were compared using linear regression with robust standard errors. Generalized estimating equation-based logistic regression determined sensitivity, specificity, negative, and positive predictive values with ABPM as the gold standard. Analyses were conducted for the group overall and by subgroup. Results: A total of 103 participants contributed 251 paired measurements. Indexed systolic BP did not differ between HBPM and daytime APBM (mean difference − 0.002; 95% CI: − 0.006, 0.003); the difference in indexed diastolic BP was minimal (mean difference − 0.033; 95% CI: − 0.040, − 0.025). Overall agreement between HBPM and 24-h ABPM in identifying abnormal BP was high (81.8%). HBPM had higher sensitivity (87.5%) than specificity (77.4%) and greater negative (89.8%) than positive (73.3%) predictive value, and findings were consistent in subgroups. Conclusions: Attended HBPM may be reasonable for monitoring BP when ABPM is unavailable. The greater accessibility and feasibility of attended HBPM may potentially help improve BP control among at-risk youth. A higher resolution version of the Graphical abstract is available as Supplementary information. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]