Social support and immunosuppressant therapy adherence among adult renal transplant recipients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of the study was to assess the relationship between social support and immunosuppressant therapy adherence among adult renal transplant recipients. METHODS: A cross-sectional, survey design was employed. Mailed questionnaires were used to collect data from 81 recipients, and included the Immunosuppressant Therapy Adherence Scale (ITAS and Modified Social Support Survey (MSSS-5). The correlation between ITAS and MSSS-5 summary scores was assessed using the correlation coefficient (r). Analyses of the following relationships were conducted using correlation coefficients: (i) ITAS summary score and individual items of the MSSS-5; and (ii) MSSS-5 summary score and individual items of the ITAS. A hierarchical regression was conducted. RESULTS: The response rate was 74%. The relationship between social support and adherence was significant (r = 0.214, p < 0.05). Two MSSS-5 items (affectionate support and instrumental support pertaining to household functions) were related to ITAS summary score (p < 0.05), and one ITAS item (forgetfulness) was related to the MSSS-5 summary score (p < 0.05). The regression model (all MSSS-5 items) accounted for 24% of the variation in ITAS summary scores. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that strategies utilizing social support to address forgetfulness as well as strategies to improve affectionate support and instrumental support related to daily household functions may be useful adherence intervention tools.
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) | 0.001 | 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".