|
The MMAS (Morisky Medication Adherence Scale) and SEAMS (Self-Efficacy for Appropriate Medication Use Scale) are frequently paired in academic research because they complement each other in evaluating medication adherence—a critical factor in managing chronic diseases where non-adherence can lead to poor health outcomes, increased hospitalizations, and higher healthcare costs. Here’s a breakdown of the rationale, drawn from patterns in the literature: • Complementary Measurement Focus: MMAS is a self-reported tool that directly quantifies adherence behaviors, such as forgetting doses or stopping medication prematurely. It’s simple, validated across cultures (e.g., Chinese or Malaysian versions in several studies), and scores patients as low, medium, or high adherers. SEAMS, on the other hand, measures a patient’s confidence (self-efficacy) in managing medication regimens under various circumstances, like when side effects occur or routines change. Self-efficacy, rooted in Bandura’s social cognitive theory, is a psychological predictor of behavior; low self-efficacy often correlates with poor adherence. Studies use both to capture not just “what” patients do (adherence via MMAS) but “why” they might struggle (self-efficacy via SEAMS), enabling a more holistic analysis. • Mediation and Correlation Analysis: Many papers explore SEAMS as a mediator or moderator in adherence models. For instance, higher SEAMS scores often predict better MMAS outcomes, as seen in epilepsy or diabetes studies where self-efficacy mediates the impact of depression, health literacy, or temperament on adherence. This allows researchers to test interventions (e.g., education or “talking pill bottles”) that boost self-efficacy to improve adherence. Validation studies also correlate the two for convergent validity, showing strong positive relationships (e.g., r = 0.926 in one Chinese lupus study). • Application in Specific Populations and Interventions: In pediatric leukemia or rural chronic disease management, both scales help tailor home-based or community interventions. For example, baseline high scores in both might indicate minimal room for improvement in low-literacy groups, while longitudinal tracking shows gains post-intervention. They’re cost-effective, quick to administer, and adaptable to diverse settings like multiple sclerosis or osteoporosis treatment, where adherence to long-term therapies is challenging. • Broader Research Trends: Adherence research often integrates these with other tools (e.g., beliefs questionnaires or HbA1c tests) to build predictive models. Their joint use stems from the need to address multifaceted barriers—behavioral, psychological, and educational—in real-world clinical practice. As non-adherence affects up to 50% of chronic disease patients globally, combining MMAS (outcome-focused) and SEAMS (process-focused) supports evidence-based strategies for better patient outcomes. 1. Relationship between Patient Preferences, Attitudes to Treatment, and Adherence to Teriflunomide in Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis (Published in Patient Preference and Adherence, 2022). This study used MMAS-8 to assess adherence to teriflunomide therapy after nine months and SEAMS to evaluate self-efficacy in medication use. 2. Association between Medication Literacy and Medication Adherence among Patients with Hypertension (Published in Frontiers in Public Health, 2023). Researchers applied the Chinese version of MMAS-8 (C-MMAS-8) for adherence measurement and SEAMS for self-efficacy assessment in a cohort of hypertensive patients. 3. Medication Adherence in Leukemia Children Receiving Home-Based Treatment and Its Related Factors (Published in Pediatric Blood & Cancer, 2023). The study incorporated MMAS-8 to gauge adherence levels and SEAMS to measure self-efficacy among pediatric leukemia patients under home care. 4. Management of Chronic Diseases in Rural Areas: A Study of 232 Cases (Published in American Journal of Translational Research, 2022). MMAS-8 and SEAMS were used to score adherence and self-efficacy, respectively, with improvements noted over time in an experimental group receiving interventions. 5. Reliability and Validity of the Chinese Version of the Eight-Item Morisky Medication Adherence Scale in Chinese Patients with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (Published in International Journal of Rheumatic Diseases, 2022). This validation study correlated MMAS-8 scores with SEAMS to confirm convergent validity. 6. Psychometric Properties of the Osteoporosis-Specific Morisky Medication Adherence Scale in Postmenopausal Women with Osteoporosis Newly Treated with Bisphosphonates (Published in Annals of Pharmacotherapy, 2012). The osteoporosis-specific version of MMAS (OS-MMAS) was evaluated alongside SEAMS and beliefs about medicines questionnaires. 7. Addressing Low Health Literacy with ‘Talking Pill Bottles’: A Pilot Study in a Community Pharmacy Setting (Published in Journal of the American Pharmacists Association, 2017). Both SEAMS and MMAS-8 were employed to track changes in self-efficacy and adherence over 90 days in a low-health-literacy population. 8. Development and Validation of Malaysia Medication Adherence Assessment Tool (MyMAAT) for Diabetic Patients (Published in PLoS One, 2020). MMAS-8 was compared with SEAMS in validating a new adherence tool for diabetes management. 9. The Role of Depressive Symptoms and Self-Efficacy in the Relationship between Temperament and Medication Adherence in Patients with Epilepsy (Published in Epilepsy & Behavior, 2025). MMAS-8 measured adherence, while SEAMS assessed self-efficacy as a mediator in the context of depressive symptoms. 10. Association of Health Literacy and Medication Self-Efficacy with Medication Adherence and Diabetes Control (Published in Patient Preference and Adherence, 2018). SEAMS evaluated self-efficacy, and MMAS assessed adherence in diabetic patients, with links to HbA1c outcomes. 11. The Mediating Effect of Self-Efficacy on the Relationship between Health Literacy and Medication Adherence among Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (Published in Patient Preference and Adherence, 2023). SEAMS and MMAS-8 were used to explore mediation effects in diabetes adherence. 12. Depression and Medication Adherence among Older Korean Patients with Hypertension (Published in Asian Nursing Research, 2017). SEAMS and MMAS were part of the assessment battery, with regression analysis on their relationships. 13. The Analysis of Factors Affecting Medication Adherence in Patients with Hypertension (Published in Patient Preference and Adherence, 2024). MMAS-8, SEAMS, and beliefs questionnaires were combined to identify adherence factors.
0 Comments
Medication adherence — the degree to which a patient correctly follows medical advice and takes their prescribed treatment — is one of the most important yet overlooked factors in healthcare outcomes. Poor adherence can lead to treatment failure, disease progression, avoidable hospitalizations, and increased healthcare costs. But what exactly is adherence, how can it be measured, and what tools can help clinicians and researchers evaluate it effectively?
 The MMAS-8 is an 8-item self-report questionnaire (7 yes/no items, 1 Likert-scale) designed to measure medication adherence in chronic diseases. It’s split into two domains: unintentional nonadherence (e.g., “Do you ever forget to take your medicine?”) and intentional nonadherence (e.g., “When you feel better, do you sometimes stop taking your medicine?”). Scored from 0 to 8, lower scores (<6) indicate poor adherence. Its reliability (Cronbach’s α=0.83) and correlation with clinical outcomes like blood pressure control (r≈0.47) make it a go-to tool for assessing adherence in conditions like rheumatoid arthritis, where consistent medication use is critical to prevent flares (AlGhurair et al., 2012).
As a lagging metric, MMAS-8 looks backward, capturing behaviors that have already occurred. For example, in a study of hypertension patients, over 50% reported forgetting doses, and many skipped medications when feeling better, reflecting past issues with forgetfulness and low motivation (AlGhurair et al., 2012). These align with WHO patient-related barriers: • Forgetfulness: Questions about missed doses identify unintentional lapses. • Lack of Motivation: Items on stopping medications due to feeling better or worse highlight deliberate choices driven by low motivation or negative beliefs. • Lack of Knowledge: Difficulty remembering all pills may signal past misunderstanding of regimens. The MMAS-8 can confirm if patients have skipped doses due to asymptomatic periods or complex regimens, providing a snapshot of adherence challenges. However, its retrospective nature means it diagnoses problems after they’ve impacted health, limiting its ability to prevent future nonadherence or explain underlying causes like low confidence. SEAMS: A Leading Metric to Predict and Prevent Nonadherence Enter SEAMS, a 13-item tool that measures patients’ confidence (self-efficacy) in managing medications, using a 3-point Likert scale (1 = not confident, 3 = very confident). Its two subscales--Medication Use (7 items, e.g., “How confident are you that you can follow the instructions on your medication label?”) and Setbacks (6 items, e.g., “How confident are you that you can take your medicines correctly when they cause some side effects?”)—assess routine and challenging scenarios, respectively. Scores range from 13 to 39, with lower scores (<25) predicting nonadherence risk (Shi et al., 2023). Validated in low-literacy populations (α=0.89, sensitivity 81% against pill counts), SEAMS is ideal for diverse settings like Sudan (Risser et al., 2007). As a leading metric, SEAMS looks forward, predicting adherence challenges by assessing confidence before issues arise. For example, low scores on remembering doses when busy (Setbacks item) predict future forgetfulness, while low confidence in managing side effects signals potential motivational barriers (Wang et al., 2024). SEAMS maps WHO patient-related barriers proactively: • Forgetfulness: Items like “How confident are you that you can remember to take all your medicines?” predict memory lapses. • Lack of Motivation: Questions about persisting despite side effects or feeling unwell forecast motivational deficits. • Lack of Knowledge: Confidence in following instructions or filling prescriptions highlights knowledge gaps. • Low Self-Efficacy: The core focus, with low scores (<25) linked to higher nonadherence risk (OR=1.15; Shi et al., 2023). The SEAMS could identify patients at risk of missing doses during flares (low Setbacks scores) or struggling with complex regimens due to low literacy (low Medication Use scores), enabling early interventions like education or reminders. Complementary Power: Lagging and Leading Together MMAS-8 and SEAMS are a dynamic duo for tackling adherence. MMAS-8 diagnoses past nonadherence, confirming the extent of barriers like forgetfulness or low motivation. For instance, a patient scoring 4/8 on MMAS-8 might have frequently forgotten doses or skipped them due to feeling better, indicating established issues. SEAMS then digs deeper, predicting why these barriers persist by assessing confidence. A low SEAMS score on remembering doses when busy (e.g., score of 1) suggests future forgetfulness, while low confidence in handling side effects predicts intentional nonadherence. This was demonstrated in a myasthenia gravis study, where MMAS-8 identified poor adherence (52% prevalence), and SEAMS’ high self-efficacy scores predicted better outcomes (OR=1.194; Wang et al., 2024).  The Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS-8) and the Self-Efficacy for Appropriate Medication Use Scale (SEAMS) are both validated self-report tools used to assess medication adherence in chronic diseases, but they serve different purposes. The MMAS-8 is considered a lagging metric because it measures past adherence behaviors and outcomes (e.g., whether patients have already missed doses or deliberately skipped medications), reflecting historical performance. In contrast, the SEAMS is a leading metric because it assesses patients’ confidence (self-efficacy) in managing future medication-taking tasks, predicting potential adherence challenges before they manifest.
As a lagging metric, MMAS-8 is diagnostic, confirming nonadherence after it occurs. It’s useful for assessing the extent of adherence problems and correlating them with clinical outcomes (e.g., poor blood pressure control in hypertension). However, it doesn’t predict future adherence or identify why barriers exist, limiting its proactive utility. For example, a patient scoring low on MMAS-8 (e.g., 4/8) has already exhibited nonadherence, but the tool doesn’t explain underlying confidence or capability issues. As a leading metric, SEAMS is predictive, identifying patients at risk of nonadherence before it occurs. For example, a patient with low confidence in managing side effects (SEAMS item #11) is likely to skip doses in the future, allowing clinicians to intervene proactively with education or regimen adjustments. Its focus on self-efficacy makes it actionable for tailoring interventions to boost confidence. Complementary Roles and WHO Barrier Mapping • Lagging vs. Leading Synergy: MMAS-8 and SEAMS complement each other in addressing WHO patient-related barriers: • MMAS-8 (Lagging): Confirms past nonadherence, quantifying the extent of barriers like forgetfulness (e.g., >50% prevalence in hypertension, AlGhurair et al., 2012) or intentional nonadherence due to low motivation or beliefs. It’s reactive, identifying patients who have already struggled. • SEAMS (Leading): Predicts future nonadherence by assessing confidence deficits that underpin these barriers. For instance, low SEAMS scores on remembering doses (#6) predict forgetfulness, while low scores on managing side effects (#11) predict motivational issues, as seen in myasthenia gravis patients (Wang et al., 2024, OR=1.194 for self-efficacy). A Path to Better Adherence For researchers and clinicians tackling medication adherence, MMAS-8 and SEAMS are a perfect pair. MMAS-8, the lagging metric, diagnoses past adherence failures, shining a light on barriers like forgetfulness and low motivation. SEAMS, the leading metric, predicts future risks by assessing self-efficacy, empowering proactive solutions. Together, they map WHO patient-related barriers comprehensively, offering actionable insights for your rheumatoid arthritis study in Sudan. By using MMAS-8 to identify nonadherent patients and SEAMS to target confidence deficits, you can design interventions—like education or simplified regimens—that improve outcomes despite economic challenges. Let’s leverage these tools to help patients stay on track and reduce flares worldwide! If you’re ready to integrate these into your study, check out the resources or reach out for support. Medication non-adherence is a pervasive challenge in healthcare, contributing to poor health outcomes, increased hospitalizations, and rising costs. The World Health Organization (WHO) identifies five dimensions of barriers to adherence: patient-related, condition-related, therapy-related, health system/healthcare team-related, and social/economic factors. To effectively address non-adherence, clinicians and researchers must first identify whether a patient is non-adherent and whether their non-adherence is intentional (deliberate) or unintentional (e.g., due to forgetfulness). The Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS-8) is a widely used, validated tool to assess adherence and distinguish between intentional and unintentional non-adherence. By combining MMAS-8 with other validated scales, healthcare providers can pinpoint specific WHO barriers and tailor interventions accordingly. This blog explores how to use the MMAS-8 to assess adherence and leverage complementary scales to identify WHO barriers. Step 1: Assessing Adherence with the MMAS-8 The MMAS-8 is an 8-item, self-report questionnaire designed to measure medication adherence, particularly for chronic conditions like hypertension, diabetes, or asthma. It is simple to administer, takes about 2–3 minutes, and is validated across diverse populations. The scale includes questions that assess both unintentional and intentional non-adherence, making it an ideal starting point. How the MMAS-8 Works • Structure: Seven yes/no questions and one 5-point Likert scale question. • Scoring: Each item is scored (0 or 1 for yes/no; 0–1 for the Likert scale). Total scores range from 0 to 8: • High adherence: Score = 8 • Medium adherence: Score = 6–7 • Low adherence: Score < 6 • Distinguishing Intentional vs. Unintentional Non-Adherence: • Unintentional: Items like “Do you sometimes forget to take your pills?” or “Did you not take any of your medicine over the past weekend?” reflect forgetfulness or carelessness. • Intentional: Items like “Have you ever cut back or stopped taking your medication without telling your doctor because you felt worse?” or “When you feel like it’s not working, do you stop taking it?” indicate deliberate choices. Using MMAS-8 in Practice Imagine a patient with type 2 diabetes who scores 4 on the MMAS-8, indicating low adherence. Their responses show they often forget to take their medication (unintentional) but also stop taking it when they feel better (intentional). This dual insight guides the next steps: addressing forgetfulness (e.g., reminders) and exploring reasons for intentional non-adherence (e.g., beliefs or side effects). Step 2: Mapping WHO Barriers with Validated Scales Once non-adherence is identified and classified as intentional or unintentional, clinicians can use targeted scales to explore the underlying WHO barriers. Below, we outline each dimension, corresponding scales, and how they complement MMAS-8 findings. 1. Patient-Related Factors These include knowledge, beliefs, motivation, or psychological factors. Intentional non-adherence often stems from negative beliefs or low motivation, while unintentional non-adherence may relate to cognitive issues. • Validated Scale: Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire (BMQ) • Purpose: Measures beliefs about medication necessity and concerns about side effects. • How It Helps: If the MMAS-8 indicates intentional non-adherence (e.g., stopping medication due to feeling worse), the BMQ can reveal if this is due to concerns about side effects or low perceived necessity. For example, a patient who believes their diabetes medication is harmful may score high on BMQ-Concerns, guiding interventions like patient education. • Example: A patient with a high BMQ-Concerns score might benefit from counseling to address misconceptions about medication risks. • Alternative Scale: Medication Adherence Self-Efficacy Scale (MASES) • Purpose: Assesses confidence in adhering to medication regimens. • How It Helps: For unintentional non-adherence (e.g., forgetting doses), low MASES scores may indicate low self-efficacy, suggesting interventions like adherence aids or skill-building. 2. Condition-Related Factors The nature of the disease (e.g., asymptomatic conditions, chronicity) can affect adherence. For example, patients with asymptomatic hypertension may intentionally skip doses due to a lack of perceived need. • Validated Scale: Patient Activation Measure (PAM) • Purpose: Assesses patients’ knowledge, skills, and confidence in managing their condition. • How It Helps: A low PAM score in a patient with low MMAS-8 adherence may indicate poor understanding of their condition’s severity, contributing to intentional non-adherence. For instance, a hypertensive patient may not see the need for daily medication if they feel fine. • Example: A low PAM score could prompt disease-specific education to improve condition awareness and adherence. • Alternative: Disease-specific scales (e.g., Asthma Control Test for asthma) can assess how symptom burden or disease control affects adherence. 3. Therapy-Related Factors Complex regimens, side effects, or long treatment duration can lead to both intentional (e.g., stopping due to side effects) and unintentional (e.g., missing doses due to complexity) non-adherence. • Validated Scale: Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) • Purpose: Measures satisfaction with medication, including side effects, convenience, and effectiveness. • How It Helps: If MMAS-8 shows intentional non-adherence, a low TSQM score for side effects or convenience may explain why. For example, a patient stopping their medication due to gastrointestinal side effects might score low on TSQM-Side Effects. • Example: Simplifying the regimen or switching medications could address low TSQM scores and improve adherence. • Alternative: Adherence to Refills and Medications Scale (ARMS) can further explore regimen complexity or refill issues. 4. Health System/Healthcare Team-Related Factors Poor provider communication, limited access to care, or lack of trust can hinder adherence. These may contribute to intentional non-adherence (e.g., distrust in provider advice) or unintentional (e.g., inability to access refills). • Validated Scale: Health Care Climate Questionnaire (HCCQ) • Purpose: Assesses patient perceptions of provider support and communication. • How It Helps: If MMAS-8 indicates low adherence, a low HCCQ score may suggest poor provider-patient relationships, prompting interventions like shared decision-making or improved communication. • Example: A patient with a low HCCQ score might benefit from regular follow-ups with a trusted provider to build rapport. • Alternative: Primary Care Assessment Survey (PCAS) evaluates access and continuity of care, which can uncover system-level barriers. 5. Social and Economic Factors Cost, social support, health literacy, or cultural beliefs can drive non-adherence. For example, financial barriers may lead to intentional dose-skipping, while low social support may cause unintentional lapses. • Validated Scale: Social Support Survey (SSS) • Purpose: Measures perceived social support for health behaviors. • How It Helps: A patient with unintentional non-adherence on MMAS-8 and low SSS scores may lack support for medication routines, suggesting interventions like involving family or community resources. • Example: Connecting a patient with a support group could improve adherence if SSS scores are low. • Alternative: Medication Access and Adherence Tool (MAAT) assesses cost-related barriers, particularly in low-resource settings. Step 3: Integrating Findings for Tailored Interventions with the MAAP In the blog’s Step 3, we discussed integrating findings from the Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS-8) with validated scales to map barriers to medication adherence across the five WHO dimensions and design tailored interventions. Here, we expand on this by incorporating the Medication Adherence Assessment Protocol (MAAP), a structured approach that can complement the MMAS-8 and other scales to systematically address adherence barriers, particularly for the social and economic dimension, but also applicable across all dimensions. The MAAP, while not as commonly referenced as scales like the BMQ or TSQM, is a framework used in some clinical and research settings to assess and address adherence barriers comprehensively. Below, we discuss how the MAAP can be integrated into Step 3 to enhance the intervention process. What is the MAAP? The Medication Adherence Assessment Protocol (MAAP) is a structured, multi-step process designed to assess medication adherence, identify barriers, and guide interventions. It typically involves: • Assessment: Using standardized tools (like MMAS-8) to measure adherence and classify it as intentional or unintentional. • Barrier Identification: Pinpointing specific barriers across the WHO dimensions through patient interviews, questionnaires, or validated scales. • Intervention Planning: Developing tailored strategies based on identified barriers, often involving interdisciplinary collaboration. • Follow-Up: Monitoring adherence over time to evaluate intervention effectiveness. The MAAP is flexible and can incorporate various validated scales, making it ideal for integrating MMAS-8 findings with tools like the Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire (BMQ), Patient Activation Measure (PAM), Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM), Health Care Climate Questionnaire (HCCQ), and Social Support Survey (SSS). It emphasizes patient-centered care and iterative refinement of interventions.  Step 1: Check for Peer-Reviewed Validation Studies The first indicator of a validated assessment is the presence of peer-reviewed studies confirming its reliability and validity. Look for published research in reputable journals (e.g., PubMed, JAMA) that detail the assessment’s development and testing. Step 2: Evaluate Reliability Metrics A validated assessment should provide quantifiable evidence of consistency. Check for metrics such as internal consistency (e.g., Cronbach’s alpha ≥ 0.7) or test-retest reliability, which measure how reliably the tool produces the same results under consistent conditions. Step 3: Assess Construct and Convergent Validity Validation requires proof that the assessment measures what it intends to and aligns with established tools. Look for evidence of construct validity (does it measure adherence effectively?) and convergent validity (does it correlate with other validated measures?). Step 4: Review Population Diversity in Testing A truly validated assessment should be tested across diverse demographics, including age, gender, ethnicity, and geographic regions. This ensures generalizability. Step 5: Seek Independent Replication Validation is strengthened when independent studies replicate the original findings. Search for research from multiple sources confirming the assessment’s effectiveness. Why It Matters Using unvalidated assessments can lead to AI models that misclassify patient data—such as overestimating medication adherence, as seen in a 2022 case where an AI tool for opioid prescriptions contributed to overdoses due to flawed data. Validated tools mitigate these risks, ensuring AI enhances healthcare analytics, telehealth, and personalized medicine safely.  The Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS) has become a cornerstone in healthcare for assessing patient adherence to prescribed medication regimens. Renowned for its reliability, validity, and global applicability, the MMAS is not only synonymous with medication adherence but also an ideal tool for training AI learning models to enhance patient outcomes. This blog explores why the Morisky Scale is a gold standard in adherence science and how its structured, behavior-focused design makes it perfect for AI model training in healthcare.
The Morisky Scale: A Gold Standard in Medication Adherence Developed by Dr. Donald E. Morisky, the MMAS began as a four-item questionnaire (MMAS-4) in 1986, designed to evaluate adherence to antihypertensive medications. It evolved into the more comprehensive MMAS-8, an eight-item scale that captures nuanced reasons for non-adherence across diverse patient populations and conditions, including diabetes, hypertension, HIV, and cancer. With over 32,000 citations and validation in over 90 countries, the MMAS is trusted by major pharmaceutical companies like Novartis and Pfizer, as well as healthcare providers worldwide. The MMAS stands out due to its: • Simplicity: Its concise, structured questions (seven yes/no and one Likert-scale question) make it easy to administer in clinical and research settings. • Behavioral Focus: The scale identifies specific reasons for non-adherence, such as forgetting doses, stopping medication when feeling better, or skipping doses due to side effects. • Global Validation: Independently validated across various diseases, languages, and cultures, the MMAS ensures consistent and reliable results. • Actionable Insights: It categorizes adherence as low, medium, or high, enabling healthcare providers to create targeted interventions. These qualities make the MMAS the go-to tool for measuring medication adherence, a critical factor in managing chronic diseases and improving health outcomes. Why the Morisky Scale is Ideal for Training AI Learning Models The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare is transforming how we address challenges like medication non-adherence, which affects up to 50% of patients with chronic conditions. The MMAS’s structured design and robust validation make it an exceptional dataset for training AI learning models. Here’s why: 1. Structured and Quantifiable Data The MMAS provides clear, quantifiable outputs (adherence scores) based on patient responses to its eight questions. This structured format is ideal for machine learning models, which thrive on consistent, well-organized data. For example, the MMAS-8 score (ranging from 0 to 8) can be used to train AI algorithms to predict adherence levels and identify at-risk patients. The binary (yes/no) and ordinal (Likert-scale) responses are easily encoded for AI processing, enabling models to analyze patterns in adherence behavior. 2. Behavioral Insights for Predictive Modeling The MMAS captures specific reasons for non-adherence, such as forgetfulness or intentional discontinuation due to side effects. These behavioral insights allow AI models to go beyond simple predictions and identify underlying causes of non-adherence. For instance, an AI model trained on MMAS data could predict that a patient who frequently forgets doses might benefit from reminders via a health app or telehealth solution. This makes the MMAS a powerful tool for developing personalized medicine interventions. 3. Extensive Validation for Robust AI Training The MMAS’s global validation across diverse conditions (e.g., type 2 diabetes, osteoporosis, chronic pain) and populations ensures that AI models trained on its data are generalizable. A 2017 systematic review found that the MMAS-8 has acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach’s α of 0.67 for diabetes and 0.77 for osteoporosis) and good convergent validity with other adherence measures. This reliability minimizes bias in AI training datasets, ensuring models produce accurate and trustworthy predictions. 4. Scalability for Large-Scale AI Applications With its use in over 90 countries and translations into 80 languages, the MMAS provides a scalable dataset for training AI models across global healthcare systems. This is particularly valuable for health tech startups and healthcare analytics companies developing AI-driven tools for population health management. The MMAS’s widespread adoption ensures that AI models can be applied to diverse patient demographics, from rural clinics in Bhutan to urban hospitals in the U.S. 5. Integration with Digital Health Technologies The MMAS aligns seamlessly with digital health tools like remote patient monitoring, mhealth, and telemedicine. AI models trained on MMAS data can be integrated into these platforms to provide real-time adherence monitoring and personalized interventions. For example, a wearable health device could use an AI model to analyze MMAS responses and send tailored reminders to patients, improving adherence rates. The MMAS’s compatibility with health informatics makes it a critical asset for AI-driven virtual care. 6. Support for Ethical AI Development Training AI models requires adherence to ethical standards, including data fidelity and proper licensing. The MMAS is a proprietary tool, and its use is governed by strict licensing agreements through MMAR, LLC. This ensures that AI models trained on MMAS data maintain fidelity to the original validated structure, reducing the risk of misinterpretation or misuse. The mandatory Ξxpert training for MMAS users further ensures that AI developers understand the scale’s nuances, enhancing the ethical deployment of AI in healthcare.  For those with a military background, operational risk management (ORM) is a familiar tactic used by the U.S. military to minimize risks at the tactical level, a principle now adapted to improve medication adherence in healthcare. The ABCD model—Assess, Balance Resources, Communications, and Do and Debrief—provides a structured framework to identify and address adherence challenges.
Following the assessment and resource-balancing phases, the third step is communications but in regards to medication adherence rephrasing it to counseling is more appropriate. Counseling is vital for engaging patients and ensuring the effective utilization of resources identified in the “B - Balance Resources” stage. This post, focuses on the logistics of counseling, leveraging the five WHO dimensions—patient-related factors, socioeconomic factors, therapy-related factors, condition-related factors, and healthcare system-related factors—as resources. I welcome your feedback as we explore this essential step. The logistics of this process involve coordinating delivery methods, timing, and personnel to address the patient’s intentional (e.g., skipping doses due to beliefs) or unintentional (e.g., forgetting doses) non-adherence domains. By utilizing the five WHO dimensions as counseling resources, healthcare providers can build trust, clarify treatment goals, and empower patients to adhere to their regimens. Here are some educational counseling examples healthcare providers may use. Patient-Related Factors - Schedule one-on-one sessions with pharmacists or nurses, using culturally tailored materials in the patient’s preferred language. Coordinate follow-up sessions at convenient times (e.g., evenings or weekends) to reinforce education. Socioeconomic Factors - Arrange discreet counseling sessions with social workers via phone or in-person visits, and provide low-cost devices (e.g., basic phones) if needed. Time sessions to avoid work hours for employed patients. Therapy-Related Factors - Coordinate brief, regular counseling check-ins via text or app notifications, and schedule therapy adjustment discussions with pharmacists during low-traffic clinic hours. Use automated systems to reschedule missed appointments. Condition-Related Factors - Plan support group sessions or family-inclusive counseling in private settings, and use flexible timing (e.g., morning sessions for energy levels) with voicemail options. Coordinate with caregivers for follow-ups. Healthcare System-Related Factors - Assign dedicated care coordinators for personalized counseling calls, integrating reminders via EHR systems. Schedule outreach with escalation protocols for non-responses. With proper educational counseling you can move to D. Stay tuned for the next post on “D - Do and Debrief” to explore implementation and evaluation. I’d love to hear your insights—share your feedback! B - Balance Resources in the Operational Risk Management (ORM) Approach to Medication Adherence8/25/2025  For those with a military background, the concept of operational risk management (ORM) may be familiar as a proven strategy used by the U.S. military to mitigate risks at the tactical level, ensuring safety and efficiency. This structured process has now been adapted for healthcare, particularly in addressing medication adherence, through the ABCD model--Assess, Balance Resources, Communicate, and Do and Debrief. By applying this framework, healthcare providers can systematically identify points along the adherence journey where improvements are needed, tailoring interventions to enhance patient outcomes. This is the second of four posts exploring how ORM can revolutionize medication adherence management, and I welcome your feedback as we delve deeper into this approach.
B - Balance Resources: A Strategic Starting Point The second step, balancing resources, is pivotal after assessing adherence and determining whether non-adherence is intentional (e.g., deliberately skipping doses due to side effects or personal beliefs) or unintentional (e.g., forgetting doses or facing logistical barriers) using tools like the Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS-8). This process begins with prioritizing resources based on these domains, ensuring that interventions align with the patient’s unique challenges. The World Health Organization (WHO) has identified five key dimensions of adherence--patient-related factors, socioeconomic factors, therapy-related factors, condition-related factors, and healthcare system-related factors—which serve as the foundation for resource allocation. By strategically balancing these dimensions, providers can optimize the use of time, tools, personnel, and financial support to overcome adherence barriers effectively. The Role of MAAP and the Three D’s To enhance this resource-balancing process, healthcare providers can leverage additional validated scales or innovative AI mapping tools to develop a Medication Adherence Action Plan (MAAP), a framework inspired by resources like those on moriskyscale.com. The MAAP integrates the three D’s: • Degree of Adherence: Quantifies the extent of non-adherence (e.g., low, medium, high) based on tools like MMAS-8. • Domain of Intentional and Unintentional Non-Adherence: Identifies whether the issue stems from deliberate choices or inadvertent lapses. • Dimension of WHO Adherence: Maps the specific WHO dimensions driving the non-adherence, guiding resource prioritization. This structured approach ensures that resources are not only allocated but also tailored to the patient’s adherence profile, maximizing impact. Prioritizing Resources Across the Five WHO Dimensions 1. Patient-Related Factors • Intentional Challenges: Patients may intentionally skip doses due to misconceptions (e.g., believing medication is unnecessary after symptom relief) or fears (e.g., dependency on chronic medications). • Unintentional Challenges: Limited health literacy or confusion about dosing schedules can lead to unintentional lapses. • Resources for Intentional: Prioritize educational sessions with pharmacists or nurses using culturally sensitive materials, and invest in counseling (e.g., motivational interviewing) to address beliefs. • Resources for Unintentional: Provide simplified guides or follow-up calls to clarify schedules as a secondary support. • Example: A patient avoiding diabetes medication due to dependency fears receives prioritized counseling, while one confused about timing gets a follow-up call. 2. Socioeconomic Factors • Intentional Challenges: Financial constraints might lead patients to deliberately reduce doses to stretch prescriptions. • Unintentional Challenges: Lack of transportation or inability to afford refills can cause unintentional non-adherence. • Resources for Intentional: Prioritize financial aid programs (e.g., discount cards) and social service referrals to address deliberate cost-saving. • Resources for Unintentional: Implement mail-order services or community health worker support for transportation as a key intervention. • Example: A patient cutting doses to save money gets a prioritized discount card, while one missing refills due to travel uses mail-order support. 3. Therapy-Related Factors • Intentional Challenges: Side effects (e.g., nausea from chemotherapy) may prompt patients to intentionally skip doses. • Unintentional Challenges: Complex regimens or frequent dosing can lead to unintentional errors. • Resources for Intentional: Prioritize behavioral therapy and alternative medication options to minimize side effects. • Resources for Unintentional: Distribute pill organizers or apps to simplify regimens as a primary resource. • Example: A patient skipping doses due to nausea gets prioritized therapy, while one missing doses due to complexity uses a pill organizer. 4. Condition-Related Factors • Intentional Challenges: Patients may avoid medication if they feel their condition is under control or stigmatized (e.g., mental health treatments). • Unintentional Challenges: Symptom fluctuations (e.g., forgetting during asymptomatic periods) can disrupt adherence. • Resources for Intentional: Prioritize support groups and family education to reduce stigma and reinforce treatment value. • Resources for Unintentional: Provide wearable reminders or caregiver monitoring as a supplementary aid. • Example: A patient hiding antidepressant use joins a prioritized support group, while one forgetting during remission uses a reminder device. 5. Healthcare System-Related Factors • Intentional Challenges: Distrust or long wait times may lead patients to intentionally avoid follow-ups or adjustments. • Unintentional Challenges: Missed appointments due to poor scheduling or lack of reminders can cause lapses. • Resources for Intentional: Prioritize CCM services (CPT 99490, 20+ minutes monthly) and provider training for trust-building. • Resources for Unintentional: Implement EHR-based reminders and streamlined referrals as a secondary support. • Example: A patient avoiding visits due to wait times gets a prioritized coordinator, while one missing appointments receives automated reminders. Balancing Resources Effectively After prioritizing resources based on the intentional or unintentional domain, the next step is to allocate them efficiently using MAAP’s insights. For example, a patient with unintentional non-adherence due to forgetting might receive a pill organizer and app as a primary resource, while one with intentional non-adherence due to side effects might get counseling and a medication review as the focus. Providers should assess resource availability—staff time, budget, and technology—ensuring sustainability, especially in resource-limited settings, by targeting the most relevant dimensions first. Practical Implementation • Leverage MAAP Data: Use the three D’s to guide resource allocation, focusing on high-risk patients identified by MMAS-8. • Integrate Technology: Deploy digital tools like apps and EHRs to support staff and enhance patient engagement. • Collaborate Across Teams: Engage pharmacists, social workers, and community health workers to pool expertise and resources. Conclusion Balancing resources in the ORM approach starts with prioritizing the five WHO dimensions—patient-related, socioeconomic, therapy-related, condition-related, and healthcare system-related factors—based on intentional or unintentional non-adherence. By using MAAP and the three D’s, healthcare providers can create tailored action plans that optimize resource use and improve adherence. Stay tuned for the next post on “C - Communicate” to explore effective patient engagement strategies. I’d love to hear your thoughts—feel free to share feedback! For more on MAAP, visit www.moriskyscale.com. Disclaimer: Use of the MMAS-8 requires permission due to copyright protection. Contact Dr. Donald Morisky via www.moriskyscale.com for licensing details.  Medication non-adherence is a critical issue in healthcare, contributing to approximately 125,000 deaths and $100 billion in costs annually in the United States alone, particularly for chronic diseases. Some of you may have a military background and are familiar with operational risk management (ORM). ORM has been successfully deployed by the US military at the tactical level to minimize risks to an acceptable level. Tactical ORM includes the ABCD approach--Assess, Balance Resources, Communicate, and Do and Debrief—healthcare providers can systematically tackle adherence barriers. Over the next 4 posts I will discuss how to apply ORM to medication adherence. I welcome your feedback. By using the ABCD model healthcare providers can pinpoint along the ABCD path where improvements need to be made. A: Assess The first step to apply ORM to medication adherence is to Assess the patient for medication adherence. The minimum healthcare outcomes should include the degree of non-adherence, and the dimension of intentional or unintentional non-adherence. There are several methods to assessing this risk. Analyzing prescription refill patterns provides an objective measure of adherence. For example, frequent gaps between refills may indicate unintentional non-adherence due to forgetfulness or financial constraints, while consistent early refills might suggest hoarding or intentional overuse. Tools like smart pill bottles or medication event monitoring systems (MEMS) track the exact timing and frequency of dose-taking. These devices offer real-time data, revealing unintentional non-adherence (e.g., missed doses) or intentional patterns (e.g., skipping doses on weekends), and are ideal for patients with complex regimens. Measuring drug levels in blood or urine provides a direct assessment of adherence. For instance, low levels of an antihypertensive medication might indicate non-adherence, whether intentional (due to side effects) or unintentional (due to missed doses). In controlled settings, such as nursing homes or clinical trials, observing patients taking their medication can confirm adherence. This method is expensive and less practical. There are validated tools that can explore adherence barriers in depth.like the MMAS-8, a widely validated 8-item self-report scale, and the gold standard for measuring medication-taking behavior. It categorizes adherence as low, medium, or high and distinguishes between intentional non-adherence (e.g., deliberately skipping doses due to side effects or beliefs) and unintentional non-adherence (e.g., forgetting doses or logistical challenges). If you haven’t uncovered the degree of medication non-adherence and the intentional or unintentional domain of non-adherence then you need to redo the assessment. By starting with a detailed assessment, providers can lay the groundwork for tailored interventions, addressing both intentional and unintentional barriers. Stay tuned for the next post, where we’ll explore how to “Balance Resources” to support these efforts. For more on MMAS-8 and MAAP, visit www.moriskyscale.com. Disclaimer: Use of the MMAS-8 requires permission due to copyright protection. Contact Dr. Donald Morisky via www.moriskyscale.com for licensing details. |
AuthorDr Donald Morisky. Archives
October 2025
Categories |
RSS Feed