Abstract
Cardiovascular diseases are estimated to cause 46% of all mortalities in Kuwait. The aim of evidence-based clinical practice has led to an increased interest in the design of medication assessment tools (MATs) to identify deviations from evidence-based practice, and eventually provide the basis of consistent standardized prescribing. This study was designed to develop and validate MATs using quality standards extracted from international guidelines to evaluate prescribing practices in secondary prevention of coronary heart disease in patients with post-acute coronary syndrome (STEMI or NSTEACS]. International guidelines were reviewed to develop two MATs (MATSTEMI and MATNSTEACS). Face and content validity of the developed tools was performed with three MAT experts and thirteen cardiologists. Two quantitative approaches were used to determine content validity: (i) Content Validity Ratio (CVR) and the average of CVR values; and (ii) Content validity index at item level (I-CVI) and scale-level of the tool (S-CVI/Ave) with the average approach. Criteria with a CVR<0.54 and I-CVI <70% were eliminated. Ultimately, feasibility testing of both MATs was performed on 66 patients’ records as a pilot study. The initial developed MATSTEMI and MATNSTEACS consisted of eighteen and twelve medication-related criteria, respectively. Face validity resulted in dividing each MAT into five dimensions. In the MATSTEMI, three criteria had CVR values < 0.54 and I-CVIs < 70%. Two criteria were eliminated and one was retained. This resulted in sixteen criteria with average CVR 0.85 and S-CVI/Ave 92.3%. In the MATNSTEACS, one criterion was eliminated. This resulted in eleven criteria with average CVR 0.93 and S-CVI/Ave 96.5%. The overall adherence scores to the MATSTEMI and MATNSTEACS were 64.1% (95% CI: 57.8–69.9%) and 62.0% (95% CI: 53.4–69.9%), respectively. It was judged as intermediate adherence for both MATs. MATSTEMI and MATNSTEACS were developed and validated to be utilized for optimizing medication therapy management and improving therapeutic interventions.
Introduction
The definition of clinical guidelines has been stated as “systematically developed statements to assist practitioner and patient decisions about appropriate health care for specific clinical circumstances” [1]. They are valuable in reducing the risks of providing unequal care to patients as they allow practitioners to provide systematic and efficient care to their patients, as well as keeping their decisions in line with published evidence-based clinical outcomes [2]. Evidence suggests that the use of standardized guidelines to guide and implement best practice is associated with improvements in the efficacy and safety of medical care, as well as cost-effectiveness [3, 4]. Moreover, studies have shown positive effects of adherence to guidelines on patients’ health care outcomes [5, 6].
Quantification of guideline adherence serves as an outcome measure to evaluate the influence of services on quality of medication use. It offers a new approach to the assessment of prescribing practices and could serve as an example for many disease states. Medication assessment tools (MATs) have been used as an audit tool to assess the therapeutic management of many diseases globally including cancer [7, 8], heart failure [9], and diabetes [10, 11]. MATs are developed using clear, defined standards endorsed by clinical guidelines and are designed to measure prescribing practices of clinicians to defined clinical guidelines by applying them to patients' medical records. They have the advantage of quantifying adherence to guidelines and ensuring more equal care at a low cost of application and a higher degree of fairness [12]. However, in this era of evidence-based medicine, those tools must be reviewed regularly when guidelines are updated, to reflect the most recent evidence and up-to-date recommendations. In the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) region, healthcare managers have expressed an increased interest in the improvement of the quality of prescribing, and this can be implemented by the development of tools that identify and quantify deviations in prescribing practices to specific patient groups by using explicit standards extracted from published evidence-based clinical guidelines [11, 13, 14].
Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) have been proven to be the number one cause of death worldwide and include coronary heart disease (CHD), cerebrovascular disease, peripheral arterial disease, rheumatic heart disease, congenital heart disease, deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism [15]. CVDs in Kuwait cause approximately 46% of all mortalities [16, 17]. The effective prevention and management of chronic CVDs is a global priority and there is a need for change in the management of CVD and the regulation of care by healthcare professionals to offer reliable, best quality care consistently [18]. Translating the evidence behind CVD management into practice often proves to be difficult in the real world, as prescribers find themselves juggling between benefits/risks, published evidence, patients’ health needs and preferences when treating patients with multiple disease states [19]. Moreover, the pharmacotherapy management of different disease states to achieve desired therapeutic targets, such as for hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and diabetes mellitus, is complex and time-consuming [20, 21]. This partially explains the existence of quality gaps in the management of patients with CVD worldwide [22, 23].
Evidence-based medication therapy and therapeutic goals for secondary prevention of CHD are well described and easily accessible in clinical practice guidelines [24–27]. However suboptimal prescribing is still a problem, and there is a substantial potential to foster the standard of preventive care to decrease the risk of recurrent cardiovascular events and death [28]. A potential method for detecting opportunities to enhance medication therapy management in secondary prevention of CHD is the extraction of medication quality standards from clinical guidelines, and hence the development of MATs, to identify and prevent deviations from evidence-based clinical practice. Previous studies reported that adhering to these quality standards results in improving patient outcomes and reducing all-cause mortality rates [29, 30]. Few studies have been performed in the developed countries using the MAT methodology to audit the secondary prevention of CHD, while there are no similar published studies from the developing countries [10, 31, 32]. There has been an increased interest in Kuwait in recent years in providing evidence-based clinical services by practitioners. In the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, including Kuwait, there is a lack of literature in prescribing practices of physicians for the treatment of CVDs. This information is necessary as a foundation for the development of a quality assurance framework aimed at ensuring optimal patient care. This study aimed to design and validate MATs using medication quality standards extracted from international clinical guideline to evaluate prescribing practices regarding secondary prevention of CHD in post-ACS patients (ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction [STEMI] or non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome [NSTEACS], which includes non-STEMI and unstable angina) in the outpatient clinics of healthcare facilities in Kuwait.
Materials and methods
The development and validation of the MATs involved three steps: development of standards, face and content validation and feasibility testing.
Development of standards
Due to the heterogeneous nature of physicians in Kuwait, a variety of guidelines are used to treat patients with cardiovascular diseases. Therefore, some exploratory work was done prior to the initiation of the study to determine what guidelines were most commonly used by physicians for secondary prevention of CHD in post-STEMI and post-NSTEACS patients. Three consultant cardiologists were contacted individually for an unstructured meeting, all of whom are heads of departments in their respective hospitals, and it was agreed that both, the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the American College of Cardiology/ American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines are the most followed guidelines in Kuwait. As the recommendations in both guidelines are divided into post-STEMI and post-NSTEACS, it was decided to develop two guideline-based MATs (MATSTEMI and MATNSTEACS) for this study. Medication-related criteria were chosen following an extensive literature review and an iterative process to identify relevant criteria from guideline recommendations of class I or IIa and the level of evidence A or B from the ESC guidelines [24, 25] and the ACC/AHA guidelines [26, 27]. Each criterion in the MAT is composed of two segments: qualifying statement and audit standard. The qualifying statement would initially be viewed in order to identify those patients eligible for the application of the standard. Application of the standard on eligible patients involves choosing an answer category from five different possible answers: Yes—the standard is met; no justified [No (J)]—the standard is not adhered to but an explicitly justified reason is present and documented in the patient’s notes; no unjustified [No (U)]—the standard is not adhered to and there is no explicitly apparent or documented reason in the patient’s notes; insufficient data qualifier [IDQ]—insufficient data on part of the qualifier; insufficient data standard [IDS]—insufficient data on part of the standard. If a patient is not eligible for the application of the standard, not applicable (NA} is recorded. These categorizations were used as both MATs will be implemented to calculate percentage adherence and percentage non-adherence to clinical guidelines.
The MATSTEMI consisted of 18 medication-related criteria and the MATNSTEACS consisted of 12 medication-related criteria. The criteria of both MATs were designed in a Likert scale questionnaire containing five points to undergo face and content validity. Each criterion had five options (strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree, and not applicable).
Face and content validity
Face validity was demonstrated through consultation with three MAT experts: an Assistant Professor of Pharmacy Practice at Qatar University (specializing in MAT development), a Professor of Pharmacy Practice at Kuwait University (specializing in cardiovascular diseases) and a Clinical lecturer at the University of Dundee (with extensive experience in MAT development in cardiovascular diseases).
Content validity was established through an electronic survey to an expert group comprising of 13 cardiologists working in Kuwait who were asked to indicate their level of agreement to each criterion on a 5-point Likert scale (strongly agree/agree/disagree/strongly disagree/not applicable). They were given three weeks to complete the survey. Two reminders (each one week apart) were also sent. The following two quantitative approaches were used to determine the content validity: (i) Content Validity Ratio (CVR) and the content validity index (average of the CVR values of all criteria) [33]; and (ii) Content validity index at the item level (I-CVI) and the scale-level of the assessment tool (S-CVI) with the average approach [3, 34, 35]. In the first approach, CVR for each criterion was calculated using the formula [CVR = (Ne - N/2)/(N/2), in which the Ne is the number of experts who agreed/strongly agreed on the respective item and N is the total number of the experts involved in the study. Based on Lawshe table, with the total number of 13 cardiologists in this study, the minimum CVR critical value for each criterion is 0.54 at α = 0.05. So, if the criterion obtained less than the critical value, it needs to be modified or deleted. The CVI was computed as the sum of the CVR values of all criteria, divided by the total number of criteria [33]. The second approach was the most widely reported for content validity in the development of instruments [3, 34, 36]. The content validity index at the item level (I-CVI) was calculated as the number of experts who agreed/strongly agreed to the relevancy of each criterion, divided by the total number of experts involved in the study. The I-CVI expresses the proportion of agreement on the relevancy of each criterion. The content validity index at the scale-level was determined using the average approach(S-CVI/Ave), in which the sum of I-CVIs is divided by the total number of criteria [34, 35, 37]. The recommended judgment on each item is as follows: If the I-CVI > 79%, the item is appropriate. If it is between 70% and 79%, it requires revision. If it < 70%, it should be deleted [38].
Feasibility testing
Following face and content validation, the MATs underwent a feasibility assessment to ensure that they are fit for assessing prescribing adherence to evidence-based guidelines. The feasibility phase was a descriptive, cross-sectional study that was conducted on 66 patients’ medical records of patients attending the cardiovascular outpatient clinics in a secondary healthcare setting in Kuwait. As this was a feasibility study to pilot the developed MATs, the sample size calculation was not performed. Ethical approval was granted by the Standing Committee for Coordination of Health and Medical Research, Ministry of Health, Kuwait (Ethics No: 2018/866). Informed consent was not required as data was extracted from the patient’s medical records retrospectively. No patient identifiable information was collected to ensure patient confidentiality.
Patients included in this study were those who had experienced either STEMI or NSTEACS within at least 12 months preceding the study period, aged between 18 and 75 years, and had attended the cardiovascular outpatient clinic at the hospital, for the long-term management of STEMI or NSTEACS. Patients aged < 18 years or > 75 years were excluded because more conservative goals are often used for these patient groups. Also, pregnant or breastfeeding women and patients newly diagnosed with prior STEMI or NSTEACS, less than 12 months were excluded.
Statistical analysis
Data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 25, Armonk, NY: IBM Corp). The results were presented as percentages (95% confidence intervals; CI), means (standard deviation-SD) if data were normally distributed, and medians (Interquartile range-IQR) if data were not normally distributed. The content validity measures were computed as being described above. Pearson correlation was also used to analyze the association between the results of the two methods used to determine content validity. Percentage adherence to every single criterion as well as the overall percentage adherence for each MAT was calculated from the summation of the total number of cases where the standard is adhered to (Yes answers) over the summation of the total number of applicable cases, where the standard should be adhered to (Yes, No(U) and IDS answers) [(Σ Yes / Applicability) x 100]. Also percentages of unjustified non-adherence and justified adherence were calculated as follows: (i) percentage unjustified non-adherence = [No(U) / Applicability] x 100 and (ii) percentage Justified non-adherence = [No(J)] / [Applicability + No(J)] x 100. The criteria adherence was judged using arbitrary cut-offs based on a previous study of similar design (high, ≥ 80%; intermediate, 50 to 79%; low < 50%) [11].
Results
Development and validation of the Medication Assessment Tools (MATs)
Face validity of the initial MATSTEMI and MATNSTEACS resulted in rewording, expanding and redefining some of the criteria, and dividing both MATs into five sections: i) antithrombotic therapy, ii) beta-blockers, iii) lipid-lowering therapy, iv) inhibitors of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system and v) miscellaneous. This resulted in the first drafts of MATSTEMI with a total number of 18 criteria and MATNSTEACS with a total number of 12 criteria.
The first drafts underwent content validation through an online survey to an expert group comprising of 13 cardiologists working in Kuwait, to generate the final draft of MATSTEMI and MATNSTEACS. Table 1 shows the characteristics of the expert group. The cardiologists’ level of agreement to the MATs criteria was evaluated using a 5-point Likert scale. Each statement was scored 4 for strongly agree, 3 for agree, 2 for disagree, and 1 for strongly disagree. Any statement that was not applicable was scored zero. The median (IQR), CVR, average of CVR values, I-CVI, and S-CVI/Ave were calculated and displayed in Tables 2 and 3. Any criterion that obtained a CVR < 0.54 and an I-CVI < 70% was eliminated from the MAT. Table 2 presents the cardiologists' responses to the MATSTEMI. Three criteria (10, 15, and 18) scored CVR values < 0.54 and I-CVIs < 70%. Following discussion with the research group, it was agreed that criteria 10 and 18 were to be eliminated; however, as criteria 15 is classified as Class I (Level of Evidence A) in ESC and ACC/AHA guidelines, it was decided to be retained in the MAT. The final draft of the MATSTEMI consisted of a total number of 16 criteria with an average of CVR values 0.85 and SCVI/Ave 92.3%. Table 3 presents the cardiologists' responses to the MATNSTEACS. One criterion number 12 had a CVR < 0.54 and an I-CVI < 70%, which was eliminated. The final draft of the MATNSTEACS consisted of a total number of 11 criteria with an average of CVR values 0.93 and SCVI/Ave 96.5%. Pearson correlation analysis of the content validity results of both approaches shows a high positive correlation (p <0.001).
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the expert group (cardiologists) (n = 13).
| Characteristic | Frequency (%) |
|---|---|
| Age (Years) | |
| 21–30 | 1 (7.7%) |
| 31–40 | 4 (30.8%) |
| 41–50 | 1 (7.7%) |
| 51–60 | 7 (53.8%) |
| Gender | |
| Male | 12 (92.3%) |
| Female | 1 (7.7%) |
| Years of practice | |
| 1–10 | 5 (38.5%) |
| 11–20 | 5 (38.5%) |
| 21–30 | 2 (15.4%) |
| >30 | 1 (7.7%) |
| Rank | |
| Registrar | 2 (15.4%) |
| Specialist | 6 (46.2%) |
| Senior specialist | 2 (15.4%) |
| Consultant | 3 (23.1%) |
| Area of practice | |
| Ministry of health | 12 (92.3%) |
| Academia + Ministry of Health | 1 (7.7%) |
Table 2. Expert group responses to the MATSTEMI (n = 13).
| NO | Statement | Number of respondents (%) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| *SA n (%) | A n (%) | D n (%) | SD n (%) | NA n (%) | Median (IQR) | CVR | I-CVI (%) | ||
| Antithrombotic therapy | |||||||||
| 1 | All patients are prescribed aspirin 81-325mg, indefinitely (if no contraindication). | 11(84.6) | 2(15.4) | - | - | - | 4 (4,4) | 1 | 100 |
| 2 | Patients with hypersensitivity to aspirin, are prescribed clopidogrel 75mg | 11(84.6) | 2(15.4) | - | - | - | 4 (4,4) | 1 | 100 |
| 3 | For patients with stents post primary PCI, in addition to aspirin 81mg (if not contraindicated), are prescribed clopidogrel 75mg or ticagrelor 90mg BID daily for at least 12 months–dual therapy | 13(100) | - | - | - | - | 4 (4,4) | 1 | 100 |
| 4 | For patients post fibrinolysis, WITHOUT subsequent PCI, are prescribed clopidogrel 75mg daily in addition to aspirin for at least 14 days and up to 1 year in absence of bleeding. | 10(76.9) | 2(15.4) | 1(7.7) | - | - | 4 (4,4) | 0.85 | 92.3 |
| 5 | Patients post fibrinolysis WITH subsequent PCI, are prescribed clopidogrel 75mg daily in addition to aspirin for 12 months | 11(84.6) | 1 (7.7) | 1(7.7) | - | - | 4 (4,4) | 0.85 | 92.3 |
| 6 | A proton pump inhibitor should be prescribed for patients on dual antiplatelet therapy and at higher than average risk of gastrointestinal bleeding. | 11(84.6) | 2(15.4) | - | - | - | 4 (4,4) | 1 | 100 |
| Beta-Blockers | |||||||||
| 7 | All post STEMI patients (with no contraindications to β-blockers) are prescribed β-blockers | 8(61.5) | 4(30.8) | 1(7.7) | - | - | 4 (3,4) | 0.85 | 92.3 |
| 8 | Patients with no contraindications to β-blockers and prescribed a β-blocker; are prescribed either metoprolol succinate SR, bisoprolol, or carvedilol for up to 3 years | 8(61.5) | 4(30.8) | 1(7.7) | - | - | 4 (3,4) | 0.85 | 92.3 |
| 9 | Patient with no contraindications to beta blockers with LVEF ≤ 40% are prescribed a beta-blocker either metoprolol succinate SR, bisoprolol, orrr carvedilol, indefinitely. | 8(61.5) | 4(30.8) | 1(7.7) | - | - | 4 (3,4) | 0.85 | 92.3 |
| 10 | Patients with contraindication to β-blockers (without LVEF≤ 40%), are prescribed non-dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers: verapamil or diltiazem. | 3(23.1) | 4(30.8) | 5(38.5) | 1(7.7) | - | 3 (2,3) | 0.08 | 53.8 |
| Lipid-lowering therapy | |||||||||
| 11 | All patients (with no contraindication to statins) regardless of lipid levels are prescribed a high intensity statin (atorvastatin 40-80mg, rosuvastatin 20-40mg). | 9(69.2) | 4(30.8) | - | - | - | 4 (3,4) | 1 | 100 |
| 12 | Atorvastatin 80mg is the drug of choice for patients. | 4(30.8) | 7(53.8) | 1(7.7) | 1(7.7) | - | 3 (3,4) | 0.69 | 84.6 |
| 13 | Patients on statins should have LDL cholesterol < 1.8 mmol/L /at least 50% reduction | 10(76.9) | 2(15.4) | - | - | 1(7.7) | 4 (4,4) | 0.85 | 92.3 |
| 14 | Patients with LDL ≥ 1.8 mmol/L and despite a maximally tolerated statin, should be on further therapy (ezetimibe). | 9(69.2) | 3(23.1) | - | - | 1(7.7) | 4 (3,4) | 0.85 | 92.3 |
| Inhibitors of renin-angiotensin aldosterone system | |||||||||
| 15 | All patients (with no contraindication to ACE inhibitors) are prescribed ACE inhibitors. | 4(30.8) | 4(30.8) | 4(30.8) | - | 1(7.7) | 3 (2,4) | 0.23 | 61.5 |
| 16 | Patients with an intolerance to ACE inhibitors are prescribed ARBs. | 6(46.2) | 6(46.2) | 1(7.7) | - | - | 3 (3,4) | 0.85 | 92.3 |
| 17 | Patients already receiving an ACEI and beta blocker, and have LVEF ≤ 40%, and either heart failure or diabetes (without significant renal dysfunction, or hyperkalemia) are prescribed aldosterone antagonist. | 7(53.8) | 5(38.5) | - | 1(7.7) | - | 4 (3,4) | 0.85 | 92.3 |
| Miscellaneous | |||||||||
| 18 | All patients ≥65 years or with increased risk, including smokers, immunocompromised patients and those with asthma should be prescribed a pneumococcal vaccine within the last 5 years | 6(46.2) | 3(23.1) | 2(15.4) | 2(15.4) | - | 3(3,4) | 0.38 | 69.2 |
| **CVI | +S-CVI/Ave | ||||||||
| 0.78 | 88.9% | ||||||||
*SA: strongly agree, A: agree, D: disagree, SD: strongly disagree, NA; not applicable
** Content validity index (average of the CVR values of the statements)
+ Content validity index at the scale-level using the average approach
Table 3. Expert group responses to the MATNSTEACS (n = 13).
| NO. | Statement | Number of respondents (%) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| *SA n(%) | A n(%) | D n(%) | SD n(%) | N/A n(%) | Median (IQR) | CVR | I-CVI (%) | ||
| Antithrombotic therapy | |||||||||
| 1 | All patients are prescribed aspirin 81-325mg, indefinitely (If no contraindication). | 8(61.5) | 4(30.8) | - | 1(7.7) | - | 4 (3,4) | 0.85 | 92.3 |
| 2 | Patients with hypersensitivity to aspirin are prescribed clopidogrel 75mg or ticagrelor 90mg BID. | 8(61.5) | 4(30.8) | 1(7.7) | - | - | 4 (3,4) | 0.85 | 92.3 |
| 3 | For patients treated with ischemic guided strategy, in addition to aspirin 81mg (if not contraindicated), are prescribed clopidogrel 75mg OD or ticagrelor 90mg BID for a duration of up to 12 months. | 9(69.2) | 3(23.1) | - | 1(7.7) | - | 4 (3,4) | 0.85 | 92.3 |
| 4 | For patients with stents, in addition to aspirin 81mg (if not contraindicated), are prescribed ticagrelor 90mg BID or clopidogrel 75mg daily for at least 12 months–dual therapy. | 10(76.9) | 2(15.4) | - | - | 1(7.7) | 4 (4,4) | 0.85 | 92.3 |
| 5 | Patients on dual antiplatelet therapy and at higher than average risk of gastrointestinal bleeding are prescribed a proton pump inhibitor. | 10(76.9) | 2(15.4) | 1(7.7) | - | - | 4 (4,4) | 0.85 | 92.3 |
| Beta-Blockers | |||||||||
| 6 | Patients with LVEF ≤ 40% are prescribed beta blockers (metoprolol succinate SR, bisoprolol, carvedilol)—(If no contraindications). | 7(53.8) | 6(46.2) | - | - | - | 4 (3,4) | 1 | 100 |
| Lipid-lowering therapy | |||||||||
| 7 | All patients regardless of lipid levels are prescribed a high intensity statin (atorvastatin 40-80mg, rosuvastatin 20-40mg)—(If no contraindication). | 11(84.6) | 2(15.4) | - | - | - | 4 (4,4) | 1 | 100 |
| 8 | All patients with LDL cholesterol ≥ 1.8 mmol/L despite a maximally tolerated statin dose, are on ezetimibe. | 10(76.9) | 3(23.1) | - | - | - | 4 (4,4) | 1 | 100 |
| Inhibitors of renin-angiotensin aldosterone system | |||||||||
| 9 | All patients with confirmed LVEF ≤ 40% or heart failure, or hypertension or diabetes are prescribed an ACE inhibitor. | 12(92.3) | 1(7.7) | - | - | - | 4 (4,4) | 1 | 100 |
| 10 | All patients with intolerance to ACE inhibitors with confirmed LVEF ≤ 40% or heart failure, or hypertension or diabetes., are prescribed ARBs. | 11(84.6) | 2(15.4) | - | - | - | 4 (4,4) | 1 | 100 |
| 11 | All patients already receiving an ACEI and beta blockers, and have LVEF ≤ 40%, and either HF or diabetes (without significant renal dysfunction, or hyperkaliemia) are prescribed aldosterone antagonist. | 8(61.5) | 5(38.5) | - | - | - | 4 (3,4) | 1 | 100 |
| Miscellaneous | |||||||||
| 12 | All patients’ ≥65 years of age or with increased risk, including smokers, immunocompromised patients and those with asthma should be prescribed a pneumococcal vaccine within the last 5 years. | 8(61.5) | 1(7.7) | 3(23.1) | - | 1(7.7) | 4 (2,4) | 0.38 | 69.2 |
| **CVI | +S-CVI/Ave | ||||||||
| 0.89 | 92.4% | ||||||||
*SA: strongly agree, A: agree, D: disagree, SD: strongly disagree, NA; not applicable.
** Content validity index (average of the CVR values of the statements).
+ Content validity index at the scale-level using the average approach.
Feasibility testing
Table 4 shows the characteristics of patients included in the feasibility study. Their mean (SD) age was 56.8 (9.9) years. Of the 66 patients, 84.8% were females and 81.8% were non-Kuwaitis.
Table 4. Patients’ demographic and other characteristics (n = 66).
| Characteristic | Frequency (%) |
|---|---|
| Age (Years) | |
| 30–39 | 3 (4.6) |
| 40–49 | 13 (19.7) |
| 50–59 | 21 (31.8) |
| 60–64 | 16 (24.2) |
| ≥ 65 | 13 (19.7) |
| Gender* | |
| Male | 56 (84.8) |
| Female | 9 (13.6) |
| Nationality | |
| Kuwait | 12 (18.2) |
| Non-Kuwaiti | 54 (81.8) |
| Smoking Status* | |
| Yes | 20 (30.3) |
| No | 18 (27.3) |
| Alcohol Use* | |
| Yes | 0 (0.0) |
| No | 38 (57.6) |
* Percentage may not total a 100% due to some missing data.
Table 5 presents the clinical characteristics of the patients. Thirty-six patients (54.4%) were diagnosed with prior STEMI. Of these post-STEMI patients, 9 (25.0%; 95% CI: 12.7–42.5) were treated with fibrinolysis without subsequent PCI and stent, 15 (41.7%; 95% CI: 26.0–59.1) were treated with fibrinolysis with subsequent PCI and stent, and 12 (33.3%; 95% CI: 19.1–51.1) were treated with a PCI and stent. On the other hand, of the 30 post-NSTEACS patients, 11 (36.7%; 95% CI: 20.5–56.1) were treated with ischemic guided strategy only and 19 (63.3%; 95% CI: 43.9–79.5) were treated with PCI and stent. Nine (13.6%) patients had left ventricular ejection fraction of ≤ 40%. Of the 41 patients with available recent BP values, 22 (53.7%) of them had BP ≥ 130/ 80 mmHg. Of the 51 patients with recent cholesterol values, 41 (80.4%) and 38 (74.5%) of them had LDL-C ≥ 1.81 mmol/L and non- HDL-C ≥ 2.59 mmol/L, respectively.
Table 5. Clinical characteristics of patients (n = 66).
| Characteristic | Frequency (%) |
|---|---|
| Post-STEMI patients n (%) | 36 (54.5) |
| Post-NSTEACS patients n (%) | 30 (45.5) |
| Duration of diagnosis (Years) Mean (SD) | 4.3 (3.3) |
| Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction (%)* | |
| ≤ 40 n (%) | 9 (13.6) |
| 41–49 n (%) | 12 (18.2) |
| ≥ 50 n (%) | 43 (65.2) |
| BP (mmHg)* | |
| SBP and DBP < 130/80 n (%) | 19 (29.8) |
| SBP ≥130 and/or DBP ≥80 n(%) | 10 (15.2) |
| SBP ≥140 and/or DBP ≥90 n (%) | 12 (18.2) |
| Mean (SD) SBP/DBP | 134 (21) / 75 (13) |
| LDL-C (mmol/L)* | |
| < 1.81 n (%) | 10 (15.2) |
| ≥ 1.81 n (%) | 41 (62.1) |
| Mean (SD) | 2.56 (1.09) |
| Non-HDL-C (mmol/L)* | |
| < 2.59 mmol/L n (%) | 13 (19.7) |
| ≥ 2.59 mmol/L n (%) | 38 (57.6) |
| Mean (SD) | 3.33 (1.04) |
| Triglycerides (mmol/L)* | |
| < 1.7 | 28 (42.4) |
| ≥ 1.7 | 13 (19.7) |
| Mean (SD) | 1.78 (0.87) |
* Percentage may not total a 100% due to some missing data.
Table 6 shows adherence scores to the MATSTEMI criteria. The level of overall adherence was judged as intermediate adherence (64.1%; 95% CI: 57.8–69.9%). The percentage of overall unjustified non-adherence was 31.6% (95% CI: 26.137.8), while that of justified non-adherence was 5.2% (95% CI: 4.2–6.3). There was very low applicability (less than 10 patients) in criteria 4, 6, 9, 11, 15, 16; and criterion 2 was not applicable to any patients. These seven criteria were not included in the calculation of the overall adherence and non-adherence. Following the application of MATSTEMI on 36 patients’ medication records, out of the 576 criteria, only 317 relevant criteria were investigated among the patients, of which 283 (89.3%; 95% CI: 85.2–92.4) were found to be applicable. There were 36 cases of insufficient data (ID), of which 24 (66.7%; 95% CI: 49.0–80.9%) were considered as IDQ and 12 (33.3%; 95% CI: 19.1–51.1%) were IDS.
Table 6. Adherence to the audit tool criteria for post-STEMI patients (n = 36).
| No. | Criteria | Applicability | % Adherence (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Antithrombotic therapy | |||
| 1 | Patient with no contraindication to aspirin is prescribed a daily dose of aspirin 81-325mg, indefinitely | 36 | 100 (88.0–99.8) |
| 2 | Patient who is not prescribed aspirin due to hypersensitivity is prescribed clopidogrel 75mg daily | 0 | - |
| 3 | Patient with stent post-primary PCI is prescribed clopidogrel 75mg or ticagrelor 90mg BID daily for at least 12 months, in addition to aspirin 81mg as a dual therapy | 18 | 83.3 (57.7–95.6) |
| 4 | Patient post fibrinolysis, WITHOUT subsequent PCI is prescribed clopidogrel 75mg daily in addition to aspirin for at least 14 days and up to 1 year in absence of bleeding | 7 | 57.1 (20.2–88.2) |
| 5 | Patient post fibrinolysis WITH subsequent PCI is prescribed clopidogrel 75mg daily in addition to aspirin for 12 months | 13 | 92.3 (62.1–99.6) |
| 6 | Patient on dual antiplatelet therapy and at higher than average risk of gastrointestinal bleeding is prescribed a proton pump inhibitor | 7 | 100 (56.1–98.7) |
| Beta-Blockers | |||
| 7 | Patient with no contraindications to beta-blockers is prescribed beta-blocker | 35 | 97.1 (83.4–99.9) |
| 8 | Patient with LVEF > 40% with no contraindications to beta-blockers and prescribed a beta-blocker is prescribed either metoprolol succinate SR, bisoprolol or carvedilol for up to 3 years | 29 | 72.4 (52.5–86.6) |
| 9 | Patient with NO contraindications to beta-blockers with LVEF ≤ 40% and prescribed a beta-blocker is prescribed either a metoprolol succinate SR, bisoprolol, or carvedilol indefinitely | 5 | 100 (46.3–98.1) |
| Lipid-lowering therapies | |||
| 10 | Patient regardless of lipid level is prescribed a high-intensity statin either atorvastatin 40-80mg or rosuvastatin 20-40mg | 36 | 16.7 (7.0–33.5) |
| 11 | Patient prescribed a high-intensity statin is prescribed atorvastatin 80mg | 5 | 40.0 (7.3–83.0) |
| 12 | Patient maintained on statins with a baseline LDL level 1.8–3.5 mmol/L has achieved target LDL cholesterol < 1.8 mmol/L or at least 50% reduction in LDL cholesterol | 35 | 22.9 (11.0–40.6) |
| 13 | Patient with LDL ≥ 1.8 mmol/L and despite a maximally tolerated statin should be on further therapy (ezetimibe) | 20 | |
| Inhibitors of renin-angiotensin aldosterone system | |||
| 14 | Patient with no contraindication to ACE inhibitors is prescribed an ACE inhibitor | 34 | 94.1 (78.9–99.0] |
| 15 | Patient not prescribed ACE inhibitor due to intolerance is prescribed ARB | 1 | 100 (5.5–89.2) |
| 16 | Patient already receiving an ACEI and beta-blocker, and have LVEF ≤ 40%, and either heart failure or diabetes (without significant renal dysfunction, or hyperkalemia) is prescribed aldosterone antagonist | 2 | 50.0 (2.7–97.3) |
Table 7 presents the adherence to the MATNSTEACS criteria. The level of overall adherence was judged as intermediate adherence (62.0%; 95% CI: 53.4–69.9%). The percentage of overall unjustified non-adherence was 38.0% (95% CI: 30.1–46.6), while that of justified non-adherence was 0.7% (95% CI: 0.1–4.4). There was very low applicability (less than 10 patients) in criteria 6, 10, 11; and criterion 2 was not applicable to any patients. These four criteria were not included in the calculation of the overall adherence and non-adherence. Following the application of MATNSTEACS on 30 patients’ medication records, out of the 330 criteria, only 166 relevant criteria were investigated among the patients, of which 156 (94.0%; 95% CI: 88.9–96.9) were found to be applicable. There were 11 cases of insufficient data (ID), of which 9 (81.8%; 95% CI: 47.8–96.8%) were considered as IDQ and 2 (18.2%; 95% CI: 3.2–52.3%) were IDS.
Table 7. Adherence to the audit tool criteria for post-NSTEACS patients (n = 30).
| No. | Criteria | Applicability | % Adherence (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Antithrombotic therapy | |||
| 1 | Patient with no contraindication to aspirin is prescribed a daily dose of aspirin 81-325mg, indefinitely | 30 | 100 (85.9–99.7) |
| 2 | Patient who is not prescribed aspirin due to hypersensitivity is prescribed clopidogrel 75mg daily | 0 | - |
| 3 | Patient treated with ischemic guided strategy, in addition to aspirin 81mg (if not contraindicated) is prescribed clopidogrel 75mg OD or ticagrelor 90mg BID for a duration of up to 12 months | 11 | 90.9 (57.1–99.5) |
| 4 | Patient with stent post primary PCI is prescribed clopidogrel 75mg or ticagrelor 90mg BID daily for at least 12 months, in addition to aspirin 81mg as a dual therapy. | 18 | 88.9 (63.9–98.1) |
| 5 | Patient on dual antiplatelet therapy and at higher than average risk of gastrointestinal bleeding Is prescribed a proton pump inhibitor | 10 | 60.0 (27.4–86.3] |
| Beta-Blockers | |||
| 6 | Patient with LVEF ≤ 40% with no contraindications to beta-blockers and prescribed a beta-blocker is prescribed either metoprolol succinate SR, bisoprolol, or carvedilol | 4 | 100 (39.6–97.7] |
| Lipid-lowering therapies | |||
| 7 | Patient regardless of lipid levels is prescribed a high-intensity statin either atorvastatin 40-80mg or rosuvastatin 20-40mg | 30 | 33.3 (17.9–52.9) |
| 8 | Patient with LDL ≥ 1.8 mmol/L and despite a maximally tolerated statin should be on further therapy (ezetimibe) | 21 | |
| Inhibitors of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system | |||
| 9 | Patient with confirmed LVEF ≤ 40% or heart failure, or hypertension or diabetes is prescribed an ACE inhibitor | 22 | 72.7 (49.6–88.4) |
| 10 | Patient with intolerance to ACE inhibitors with confirmed LVEF ≤ 40% or heart failure, or hypertension or diabetes is prescribed ARB | 7 | 57.1 (20.2–88.2) |
| 11 | Patient already receiving an ACEI and beta blocker, and have LVEF ≤ 40%, and either heart failure or diabetes (without significant renal dysfunction, or hyperkalemia) is prescribed aldosterone antagonist | 3 | 66.7 (12.5–98.2) |
Discussion
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region to develop and validate MATs using medication standards extracted from international clinical guidelines to evaluate prescribing practices in secondary prevention of CHD in post-STEMI and post-NSTEACS patients. In the present study, MATSTEMI and MATNSTEACS were developed and validated as standardized tools to document and identify non-adherence to guidelines for future initiatives for quality improvements in routine practice. Also, these MATs may serve as valuable research tools to identify areas for improvement and monitor changes in adherence to clinical guidelines in Kuwait.
The importance of validity in tool development is an essential step in the development of our MATs. Face validity ensures that the tools developed read well and appear pleasant for respondents, and thus more acceptable. Some researchers claim that face validity is not considered as validity as far as measurement principles are concerned, since it does not consider what to measure, but focuses on the appearance of the tools [39]. However, it is deemed as a necessary step in the development of the present tools as MATs are quite complex tools to develop. We believe that our choice of the experts for face validity, being MAT experts in different disease states, ensured that the items were well refined and organized in a suitable format and sequence to enable data collection in a usable form. Content validity is a critical step in the development of an instrument to address the degree to which items of an instrument sufficiently represent the content domain and should be obtained on each developed instrument [40]. Quantifying content validity ensures that the tool measures knowledge of the content domain of which it was designed to measure knowledge. Previous MAT studies often established content validity through qualitative expert reviews. In the present study, two quantitative approaches were used to ensure the validity of the developed tools. A distinction in the results of different approaches used in the analysis of the content validity of the same instrument was reported in the literature [41]. The current results revealed that the final drafts of MATSTEMI and MATNSTEACS enjoy an appropriate level of overall content validity with high values of average CVR (0.85 and 0.93, respectively) and SCVI/Ave (92.3% and 96.5%, respectively). The present study showed the agreement of CVR and SCVI/Ave analysis on the items of both MATs and their results were found to be positively correlated (p<0.001). Hence, it can be stated that both approaches are in line for decision-making on valid and invalid items in this study. Heterogeneity and the number of experts are considered to be crucial in the determination of the content validity of an instrument to decrease the probability of chance agreement [42]. The present study comprised 13 cardiologists including registrars, specialists, senior specialists, and consultants from different hospitals to represent potential different therapy traditions, particularly in the absence of intrinsic locally generated guidelines. Furthermore, the e-mail communication minimized time consumption and maintained anonymity between the expert panel members that may enable members to front their opinion regardless of the other members’ judgments.
The feasibility testing was performed retrospectively on 66 patients’ medical records in the outpatient clinics as a pilot study to test the MATs fitness for purpose. The present findings of the pilot study revealed that both MATs performed very well in a clinical setting and were able to identify good clinical performances as well as improvement potentials regarding secondary prevention of CHD in post-ACS patients. Post-ACS patients, regardless of nationality, are followed up every two months in the outpatient cardiovascular clinics in secondary care in Kuwait. The overall criteria applicability of MATSTEMI and MATNSTEACS were 89.3% and 94%, respectively, which are high compared to those indicated in other studies using the MAT methodology [7, 10, 43]. Criterion 2 in both MATs was not applicable in the study population. Also, six criteria in the MATSTEMI and three criteria in the MATNSTEACS had low applicability (less than 10 patients). This could be attributed to the small sample size and convenience sampling from a single hospital in this pilot study. However, when utilizing the MATs prospectively as clinical tools, even low-applicability criteria are important because their exclusion may increase the risk of overlooking crucial aspects of management in a few eligible patients. Also, they can serve as reminders of guideline recommendations in rare clinical situations. Therefore, inclusion and exclusion of criteria should not exclusively concern applicability but also the clinical relevance [32]. The total adherence scores to the MATSTEMI and MATNSTEACS applicable criteria were judged as intermediate for both MATs, which is similar to that reported in studies from developed countries using the MAT methodology to audit the secondary prevention of CHD [10, 31, 32]. Several factors could contribute to the intermediate adherence score achieved in this study, including, the lack of national guidelines for the management of chronic cardiovascular disorders, as well as the limited multisiciplinary approach to the management of patients with chronic cardiovascular disorders in Kuwait which makes it more difficult to adapt clinical standards into practice [44]. However, as this was a feasibility study, a larger study with a representative sample is needed to confirm the adherence score. Insufficient documentation (recorded as IDQ and IDS) was apparent for both MATs, which is consistent with previous MAT studies conducted in Kuwait to evaluate prescribers’ adherence to evidence-based guidelines in type 2 diabetes mellitus and bipolar disorder [11, 14] that highlighted a clear gap in documentation in medical records, particularly in the recording of laboratory results. This could lead to a possible low estimate of adherence and does not necessarily indicate a lack of care. This highlights the need for adequate documentation to ensure optimum continuity of care between healthcare settings and personnel. Also, the MATSTEMI and MATNSTEACS may be valuable in revealing gaps in documentation practice in patients’ records at healthcare facilities.
The present findings revealed low achievement of optimal target goals for BP, LDL-C, and non-HDL-C among the study population. This is alarming and increases the risk for recurrent cardiovascular events. Factors reported as limitations to patients achieving target goals included inappropriate prescribing practices, poor patient adherence to medication, and unawareness of the importance of therapeutic goal attainment [45].
Strengths and limitations
The developed and validated MATs were found to be valid with respect to feasibility in a Kuwaiti hospital setting. These novel MATs would be beneficial in routine practice to facilitate appropriate prescribing by helping clinicians discuss local practice by reference to evidence-based guidelines and also help identify areas that should be proposed to quality improvement initiatives. In addition, the MATs developed will be applied as research tools in the future in a large intervention study as outcome measures to assess the adherence of prescribers to evidence-based guidelines for secondary prevention of CHD in the outpatient clinics of healthcare facilities in Kuwait.
The present study has certain limitations. MATSTEMI and MATNSTEACS were developed using the European and American guidelines, the ESC guidelines [24, 25], and the ACC/AHA guidelines [26, 27] that are in accordance with the guidelines used by the cardiologists in the secondary prevention of CHD in post-ACS patients in Kuwait. Although both MATs were developed for a Kuwaiti setting, they can be applied in different countries and settings, with adaptations to local and national guidelines, in addition to clinical cultures [46]. The small sample size and convenience sampling from a single hospital, which are regarded as sufficient for the main aim of the feasibility study to test the MATs fitness for purpose, would have affected the external validity in terms of generalizing the findings to the wider population. Even though standardized predefined data collection forms were used to extract data from patients’ records, the application time was not measured to inform the clinical utility of the MATs in a real world setting. However, the time used can be comparable with that utilized in data collection for medication review in practice settings.
Conclusions
A 16-criterion MATSTEMI and an 11-criterion MATNSTEACS were developed from international clinical guidelines to help practitioners to standardize the medication review process in secondary prevention of CHD in post ACS patients. The criteria in both MATs are explicitly defined, face and content validity, and feasibility were explored with appropriate results indicating that both MATs include necessary aspects of quality of care of secondary prevention of CHD in post ACS patients. The feasibility study indicated that a retrospective chart review using both MATs on a larger scale will enable identification of good clinical performance as well as potential areas for improvement. Hence, these MATs will serve as tools for quality assurance of medication therapy in clinical settings and will help in the establishment of standards for prescribing practice. Those tools must be reviewed regularly when guidelines are updated, to reflect the most recent evidence and up-to-date recommendations.
Supporting information
(SAV)
Data Availability
All relevant data are within the paper and supporting information files.
Funding Statement
DA received a grant from the Kuwait Foundation for the Advancement of Sciences (KFAS - www.kfas.com) (Grant no:PR18-13PR-01). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
References
- 1.Institute of Medicine Committee to Advise the Public Health Service on Clinical Practice G In: Field MJ, Lohr KN, editors. Clinical Practice Guidelines: Directions for a New Program. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US) Copyright © National Academy of Sciences.; 1990. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Woolf SH, Grol R, Hutchinson A, Eccles M, Grimshaw J. Clinical guidelines: potential benefits, limitations, and harms of clinical guidelines. Bmj. 1999;318(7182):527–30. 10.1136/bmj.318.7182.527 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Davis DA, Taylor-Vaisey A. Translating guidelines into practice. A systematic review of theoretic concepts, practical experience and research evidence in the adoption of clinical practice guidelines. CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne. 1997;157(4):408–16. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Klazinga NS. Development and validation of an international appraisal instrument for assessing the quality of clinical practice guidelines: the AGREE project [AGREE]. Quality and Safety in Health Care. 2003;12:18–23. 10.1136/qhc.12.1.18 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Lugtenberg M, Burgers JS, Westert GP. Effects of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines on quality of care: a systematic review. Quality & safety in health care. 2009;18(5):385–92. 10.1136/qshc.2008.028043 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Arabi YM, Haddad S, Tamim HM, Al-Dawood A, Al-Qahtani S, Ferayan A, et al. Mortality reduction after implementing a clinical practice guidelines-based management protocol for severe traumatic brain injury. Journal of critical care. 2010;25(2):190–5. 10.1016/j.jcrc.2009.05.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Hakonsen GD, Hudson S, Loennechen T. Design and validation of a medication assessment tool for cancer pain management. Pharmacy world & science: PWS. 2006;28(6):342–51. 10.1007/s11096-006-9060-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Hakonsen GD, Strelec P, Campbell D, Hudson S, Loennechen T. Adherence to medication guideline criteria in cancer pain management. Journal of pain and symptom management. 2009;37(6):1006–18. 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2008.06.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.McAnaw JH S; McGlynn S. Development of an evidence-based medication assessment tool to demonstrate the quality of drug therapy use in patients with heart failure. Int J Pharm Pract. 2003;11(R17). [Google Scholar]
- 10.Kamyar M, Johnson BJ, McAnaw JJ, Lemmens-Gruber R, Hudson SA. Adherence to clinical guidelines in the prevention of coronary heart disease in type II diabetes mellitus. Pharmacy world & science: PWS. 2008;30(1):120–7. 10.1007/s11096-007-9154-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Al-Taweel DM, Awad AI, Johnson BJ. Evaluation of adherence to international guidelines for treating patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in Kuwait. International journal of clinical pharmacy. 2013;35(2):244–50. 10.1007/s11096-012-9738-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Kaufmann CP, Tremp R, Hersberger KE, Lampert ML. Inappropriate prescribing: a systematic overview of published assessment tools. European journal of clinical pharmacology. 2014;70(1):1–11. 10.1007/s00228-013-1575-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Issam Diab M, Julienne Johnson B, Hudson S. Adherence to clinical guidelines in management of diabetes and prevention of cardiovascular disease in Qatar. International journal of clinical pharmacy. 2013;35(1):101–12. 10.1007/s11096-012-9714-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Al-Taweel DM, Alsuwaidan M. A medication assessment tool to evaluate prescribers' adherence to evidence-based guidelines in bipolar disorder. International journal of clinical pharmacy. 2017;39(4):897–905. 10.1007/s11096-017-0498-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Organization WH. The Global Status Report on Noncommunicable Diseases 2010. [cited 2020 April]. Available from: https://www.who.int/chp/ncd_global_status_report/en/. [Google Scholar]
- 16.Organization WH. World Health Statistics—Kuwait country profile [cited 2020 April]. Available from: http://www.who.int/gho/countries/kwt/country_profiles/en/index.html. [Google Scholar]
- 17.Zubaid M, Rashed WA, Husain M, Mohammad BA, Ridha M, Basharuthulla M, et al. A registry of acute myocardial infarction in Kuwait: Patient characteristics and practice patterns. The Canadian journal of cardiology. 2004;20(8):783–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.NHS. High quality care for all—NHS Next stage review final report. In: Do Health, editor. UK: The Stationary Office; 2008. [Google Scholar]
- 19.Dreischulte T, Johnson J, McAnaw J, Geurts M, de Gier H, Hudson S. Medication assessment tool to detect care issues from routine data: a pilot study in primary care. International journal of clinical pharmacy. 2013;35(6):1063–74. 10.1007/s11096-013-9828-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Steinman MA. Polypharmacy and the balance of medication benefits and risks. The American journal of geriatric pharmacotherapy. 2007;5(4):314–6. 10.1016/j.amjopharm.2007.12.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Erhardt LR. Barriers to effective implementation of guideline recommendations. The American journal of medicine. 2005;118 Suppl 12A:36–41. 10.1016/j.amjmed.2005.09.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Wolf-Maier K, Cooper RS, Banegas JR, Giampaoli S, Hense HW, Joffres M, et al. Hypertension prevalence and blood pressure levels in 6 European countries, Canada, and the United States. Jama. 2003;289(18):2363–9. 10.1001/jama.289.18.2363 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Ogilvie IM, Newton N, Welner SA, Cowell W, Lip GY. Underuse of oral anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation: a systematic review. The American journal of medicine. 2010;123(7):638–45 e4. 10.1016/j.amjmed.2009.11.025 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Roffi M, Patrono C, Collet JP, Mueller C, Valgimigli M, Andreotti F, et al. 2015 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation: Task Force for the Management of Acute Coronary Syndromes in Patients Presenting without Persistent ST-Segment Elevation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). European heart journal. 2016;37(3):267–315. 10.1093/eurheartj/ehv320 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Ibanez B, James S, Agewall S, Antunes MJ, Bucciarelli-Ducci C, Bueno H, et al. 2017 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation: The Task Force for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). European heart journal. 2018;39(2):119–77. 10.1093/eurheartj/ehx393 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.O'Gara PT, Kushner FG, Ascheim DD, Casey DE, Jr., Chung MK, de Lemos JA, et al. 2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2013;127(4):e362–425. 10.1161/CIR.0b013e3182742cf6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Amsterdam EA, Wenger NK, Brindis RG, Casey DE Jr., Ganiats TG, Holmes DR Jr., et al. 2014 AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2014;130(25):2354–94. 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000133 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Kotseva K, Wood D, De Backer G, De Bacquer D, Pyorala K, Keil U, et al. EUROASPIRE III: a survey on the lifestyle, risk factors and use of cardioprotective drug therapies in coronary patients from 22 European countries. European journal of cardiovascular prevention and rehabilitation: official journal of the European Society of Cardiology, Working Groups on Epidemiology & Prevention and Cardiac Rehabilitation and Exercise Physiology. 2009;16(2):121–37. 10.1097/HJR.0b013e3283294b1d [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Kuepper-Nybelen J, Hellmich M, Abbas S, Ihle P, Griebenow R, Schubert I. Association of long-term adherence to evidence-based combination drug therapy after acute myocardial infarction with all-cause mortality. A prospective cohort study based on claims data. European journal of clinical pharmacology. 2012;68(10):1451–60. 10.1007/s00228-012-1274-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Mukherjee D, Fang J, Chetcuti S, Moscucci M, Kline-Rogers E, Eagle KA. Impact of combination evidence-based medical therapy on mortality in patients with acute coronary syndromes. Circulation. 2004;109(6):745–9. 10.1161/01.CIR.0000112577.69066.CB [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Garcia BH, Utnes J, Naalsund LU, Giverhaug T. MAT-CHDSP, a novel medication assessment tool for evaluation of secondary prevention of coronary heart disease. Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety. 2011;20(3):249–57. 10.1002/pds.2054 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Garcia BH, Smabrekke L, Trovik T, Giverhaug T. Application of the MAT-CHDSP to assess guideline adherence and therapy goal achievement in secondary prevention of coronary heart disease after percutaneous coronary intervention. European journal of clinical pharmacology. 2013;69(3):703–9. 10.1007/s00228-012-1402-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Lawshe C. A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel psychology. 1975;28(4):563–75. [Google Scholar]
- 34.Lynn MR. Determination and quantification of content validity. Nursing research. 1986;35(6):382–5. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Polit DF, Beck CT, Owen SV. Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Research in nursing & health. 2007;30(4):459–67. 10.1002/nur.20199 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Grant JS, Davis LL. Selection and use of content experts for instrument development. Research in nursing & health. 1997;20(3):269–74. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Davis LL. Instrument review: Getting the most from a panel of experts. Applied nursing research. 1992;5(4):194–7. [Google Scholar]
- 38.Abdollahpour E, Nejat S, Nourozian M, Majdzadeh R. The process of content validity in instrument development. Iranian Epidemiology. 2010;6(4):66–74. [Google Scholar]
- 39.Zamanzadeh V, Ghahramanian A, Rassouli M, Abbaszadeh A, Alavi-Majd H, Nikanfar AR. Design and Implementation Content Validity Study: Development of an instrument for measuring Patient-Centered Communication. Journal of caring sciences. 2015;4(2):165–78. 10.15171/jcs.2015.017 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Waltz CF, Strickland OL, Lenz ER. Measurement in nursing and health research: Springer publishing company; 2010. [Google Scholar]
- 41.Robins JA, Wiersema MF. The measurement of corporate portfolio strategy: Analysis of the content validity of related diversification indexes. Strategic Management Journal. 2003;24(1):39–59. [Google Scholar]
- 42.Campbell SM, Cantrill JA. Consensus methods in prescribing research. Journal of clinical pharmacy and therapeutics. 2001;26(1):5–14. 10.1046/j.1365-2710.2001.00331.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Chinwong S, Reid F, McGlynn S, Hudson S, Flapan A. The need for pharmaceutical care in the prevention of coronary heart disease: an exploratory study in acute myocardial infarction patients. Pharmacy world & science: PWS. 2004;26(2):96–101. 10.1023/b:phar.0000018599.47002.e7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Laing R, Hogerzeil H, Ross-Degnan D. Ten recommendations to improve use of medicines in developing countries. Health policy and planning. 2001;16(1):13–20. 10.1093/heapol/16.1.13 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Whitley HP, Fermo JD, Ragucci K, Chumney EC. Assessment of patient knowledge of diabetic goals, self-reported medication adherence, and goal attainment. Pharmacy practice. 2006;4(4):183 10.4321/s1885-642x2006000400006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Salmany SS, Koopmans SM, Treish IM, Jaber RE, Telfah S, Tuffaha HW. Revision and validation of a medication assessment tool for chronic cancer pain management. The American journal of hospice & palliative care. 2012;29(8):640–6. 10.1177/1049909111435812 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
(SAV)
Data Availability Statement
All relevant data are within the paper and supporting information files.