Forgetfulness: A Role in Noncompliance with Antidepressant Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the degree of noncompliance with antidepressant treatment in the Alberta population and to investigate the reasons for noncompliance. METHOD: We used data from the Alberta Mental Health Survey, a telephone survey conducted in 2003 (n = 5323 adults), to produce population-based estimates of the frequency of noncompliance and the reported reasons for noncompliance. RESULTS: Reported noncompliance was 41.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 36.9% to 46.6%) for respondents taking 1, 2, or 3 antidepressants. Noncompliance for those taking 1 antidepressant was 42.0% (95%CI, 36.9% to 47.2%), whereas noncompliance for those taking 2 or 3 antidepressants was 39.4% (95%CI, 26.7% to 53.6%). Among respondents currently taking at least one antidepressant, 64.9% (95%CI, 57.4% to 71.7%) reported that forgetfulness was the most common reason for noncompliance. Of respondents taking 1 medication, 64.1% (95%CI, 56.0% to 71.4%) reported forgetfulness as did 71.3% (95%CI, 48.3% to 86.8%) of those taking 2 or 3 medications. Both the frequency of noncompliance and the reported reasons for noncompliance were independent of sex and age. CONCLUSION: Our study replicates prior reports that indicate that noncompliance is common with antidepressant treatment. Forgetting to take medication is the most important reported reason for this noncompliance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".