Self-efficacy for medication management: a systematic review of instruments

Figures & data

Table 1 Search terms

1	(Medication adherence[MeSH Terms]) OR medication adherence[Title/Abstract]
2	(Self efficacy[MeSH Terms]) OR self efficacy[Title/Abstract]
3	(Surveys and questionnaires[MeSH Terms]

Note: Final search = ((((medication adherence[MeSH Terms]) OR medication adherence[Title/Abstract])) AND ((Self efficacy[MeSH Terms]) OR self efficacy[Title/Abstract])) AND (surveys and questionnaires[MeSH Terms]).

Table 2 Characteristics of included studies

Study	Name of survey	Language	Population	Setting
Cameron et al^Citation26	MUSE scale	English	N = 267 Adults; agem = 47.9 years (±13.4); 20% less than high school education	Outpatients attending primary care in three USA cities (Chicago, New York City, and Shreveport)
Risser et al^Citation23	SEAMS	English	N = 436 Individuals with coronary heart disease; agem = 63.80 (±10.4); 91.12% African American; 53% completed high school	Primary care clinic in one USA city (Atlanta)
De Geest et al^Citation27	LTMSES	English Dutch French	N = 1,021 Pooled from existing adherence studies in transplant, hyperlipidemia, and AIDS/HIV patients; agem = 53.70 (±14.1)	Reported in individual studies, with subjects from the USA, Belgium, and the Netherlands

Notes: Age_m = mean age. Standard deviation in parentheses (±).

Abbreviations: MUSE, Medication Understanding and Use Self-Efficacy; SEAMS, Self-Efficacy for Appropriate Medication Use Scale; LTMBSES, Long-Term Medication Behavior Self-Efficacy Scale.

Table 3 Checklist of evaluative criteria to assess the instrument’s developmental measurement properties

Checklist item	Score
	Cameron et al^Citation26	Risser et al^Citation23	De Geest et al^Citation27,^+
Conceptual model
1. The construct to be measured has been defined	1	1	1
2. The intended respondent population has been described	1	1	1
3. The conceptual model addresses whether a single construct/scale or multiple subscales are expected	0	0	0
Validity
Content
4. There is evidence that members of the intended respondent population were involved in the measure’s development	0	1	1
5. There is evidence that content experts were involved in the measure’s development	0	1	1
6. There is description of the methodology by which items/questions were determined	1	1	1
Construct
7. There is reported quantitative justification that single scale or multiple subscales exist in the measure	1	1	1c
8. There are findings supporting expected associations with existing measures or with other relevant data	1	1	1c
9. There are findings supporting expected differences in scores between relevant known groups	1	0	0
10. The measure is intended to measure change over time? If YES, there is evidence of both test–retest reliability AND responsiveness to change. Otherwise, award 1 point if there is an explicit statement that the measure is NOT intended to measure change over time	0	0	0
Reliability
11. There is evidence that the measure’s reliability was tested	1	1	0
12. Reported indices of reliability are adequate and/or justified	1	1	0
Scoring and interpretation
13. There is documentation for how to score the measure	0	1	1c
14. A plan for managing and/or interpreting missing responses has been described	0	0	1
15. Information is provided about how to interpret the measure scores, normative data, and/or a definition of severity	0	1	1c
Qualities related to the respondent
16. The time to complete the measure is reported and reasonable. If it is not reported, the number of questions appropriate for the intended application is provided	1	1	1
17. Is there a description of the literacy of the measure?	1	1	0
18. The entire measure is available for public viewing	0	1	1
Total score (/18)	10	14	12

Notes: This table is based on a table by Patel et al.³⁵ Scores represent whether or not the information is provided in the citation/source document (0 = criteria not met, 1 = criteria met). + = Scores for this survey combined the review of two articles.^27,28 c = Addressed by Denhaerynck et al.²⁸

Figure 1 Flow chart of search, identification, and screening of abstracts.

CameronKARossELClaymanMLMeasuring patients’ self-efficacy in understanding and using prescription medicationPatient Educ Couns201080337237620650594

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

RisserJJacobsonTAKripalaniSDevelopment and psychometric evaluation of the Self-efficacy for Appropriate Medication Use Scale (SEAMS) in low-literacy patients with chronic diseaseJ Nurs Meas200715320321918232619

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

De GeestSAbrahamIGemoetsHEversGDevelopment of the long-term medication behaviour self-efficacy scale: qualitative study for item developmentJ Adv Nurs19941922332388188953

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

PatelDAShardaRHovisKLPatient-reported outcome measures in dysphagia: a systematic review of instrument development and validationDis Esophagus2017305123

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

DenhaerynckKAbrahamIGourleyGValidity testing of the Long-Term Medication Behavior Self-Efficacy ScaleJ Nurs Meas200311326728215633781

 PubMedGoogle Scholar