Conventional adherence assessment methods are low‐sensitivity diagnostic tests in people with type 2 diabetes: The TARGET study
Authors' conclusion
Conventional adherence methods are low-sensitivity diagnostic tests, and CAT offers improved diagnosis of non-adherence in people with type 2 diabetes.
Study context
- Population
- People with T2D attending primary care
- Participants
- 49 / 60 / 58
- Exposure
- Conventional adherence methods vs chemical adherence testing
- Chemical adherence testing (CAT)n = 49reference
- Medication possession ratio (MPR)n = 60
- Hill-Bone Medication Adherence Scale (HBMAS)n = 58
- Outcome
- Within-person diagnostic performance vs CAT
Methodological detailswithin-person diagnostic performance analysis
- Within-person diagnostic performance analysis
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
| Group | Sensitivity | Specificity |
|---|---|---|
| MPR | 16.7% (95% CI 4.7-44.8)Sensitivity on a scale from 0 to 100 percent | — not stated in the abstract |
| HBMAS | 66.7% (95% CI 39.1-86.2)Sensitivity on a scale from 0 to 100 percent | 11.1% (95% CI 2.0-43.5)Specificity on a scale from 0 to 100 percent |
Sensitivity
MPR16.7% (95% CI 4.7-44.8)
HBMAS66.7% (95% CI 39.1-86.2)
Sensitivity on a scale from 0 to 100 percentSpecificity
MPR— not stated in the abstract
HBMAS11.1% (95% CI 2.0-43.5)
Specificity on a scale from 0 to 100 percent— not stated in the abstract
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Further findings
- Only CAT-defined non-adherence was associated with significantly higher HbA1c
- CAT and MPR showed a significant association with diastolic blood pressure (BP)
Parts of this Brief are withheld: the automatic checks could not confirm them against the abstract.
Original publication
Conventional adherence assessment methods are low‐sensitivity diagnostic tests in people with type 2 diabetes: The TARGET study. Diabet Med. Published 13 August 2026. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →