Medication non-adherence remains a significant barrier in achieving better health outcomes for patients with chronic diseases. Previous self-reported medication adherence tools were not developed in the context of the Malaysia population. The most commonly used tool, MMAS-8, is no longer economical because it requires a license and currently every form used is charged. Hence, there is a need to develop and validate a new medication adherence tool. The Malaysia Medication Adherence Assessment Tool (MyMAAT) was developed by a multidisciplinary team with expertise in medication adherence and health literacy. The face and content validities of the MyMAAT was established by a panel of experts. A total of 495 patients with type 2 diabetes were recruited from the Ministry of Health facilities consisting of five hospitals and five primary health clinics. A test-retest was conducted on 42 of the patients one week following their first data collection. Exploratory factor analysis was performed to evaluate the validity of the MyMAAT. The final item for MyMAAT was compared with SEAMS, HbA1c%, Medication Possession ratio (MPR) score, and pharmacist’s subjective assessment for its hypothesis testing validity. The MyMAAT-12 achieved acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.910) and stable reliability as the test-retest score showed good to excellent correlation (Spearman’s rho = 0.96, p = 0.001). The MyMAAT has significant moderate association with SEAMS (Spearman’s rho = 0.44, p = < 0.001) and significant relationship with HbA1c (< 8% and ≥ 8%) (χ2(1) = 13.4, p < 0.001), MPR (χ2(1) = 13.6, p < 0.001) and pharmacist’s subjective assessment categories (χ2(1) = 31, p < 0.001). The sensitivity of MyMAAT-12, tested against HbA1c% was 72.9% while its specificity was 43%. This study demonstrates that the MyMAAT-12 together with other methods of assessment may make a better screening tool to identify patients who were non-adherence to their medications.

Background There is increasing intervention activities provided during pharmacist-led diabetes management. Nevertheless, there is an unclear definition of the activities involved during the intervention. Thus, this study aimed to describe the type of intervention strategies and service model provided during pharmacist-led type 2 diabetes management and service outcomes. Methods This study utilized the scoping review methodology of the Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers’ Manual 2015. Articles on pharmacist-led diabetes management focusing on the service content, delivery methods, settings, frequency of appointments, collaborative work with other healthcare providers, and reported outcomes were searched and identified from four electronic databases: Ovid Medline, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science from 1990 to October 2020. Relevant medical subject headings and keywords, such as “diabetes,” “medication adherence,” “blood glucose,” “HbA1c,” and “pharmacist,” were used to identify published articles. Results The systematic search retrieved 4,370 articles, of which 61 articles met the inclusion criteria. The types of intervention strategies and delivery methods were identified from the studies based on the description of activities reported in the articles and were tabulated in a summary table. Conclusion There were variations in the descriptions of intervention strategies, which could be classified into diabetes education, medication review, drug consultation/counseling, clinical intervention, lifestyle adjustment, self-care, peer support, and behavioral intervention. In addition, most studies used a combination of two or more intervention strategy categories when providing services, with no specific pattern between the service model and patient outcomes.