Change in Medication Adherence and Beliefs in Medicines Over Time in Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The temporal component of medication adherence is important while designing interventions to improve medication adherence. Thus, the objective of this study was to determine how medication adherence and beliefs in medicines change over time in older adults. METHODS: A two-year longitudinal internet-based survey among adults 65+ years was used to collect data on medication adherence (Morisky 4-item scale) and beliefs in medicines (Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire). Paired t-test and one-way ANOVA determined if a change in beliefs in medicines and medication adherence over time was significant. A multiple linear regression was used to determine the significant predictors of change in medication adherence over time. RESULTS: 436 respondents answered both baseline and follow-up surveys. Among all respondents, there was no significant change in adherence (0.58 ± 0.84 vs. 0.59 ± 0.84; p > 0.05), necessity beliefs (17.13 ± 4.31 vs. 17.10 ± 4.29; p > 0.05), or concern beliefs (11.70 ± 3.73 vs. 11.68 ± 3.77; p > 0.05) over time. For older adults with lower baseline adherence, there was a statistically significant improvement in adherence (1.45 ± 0.70 vs. 0.99 ± 0.97; p < 0.05); but no change in beliefs in medicines over time. The significant predictors of change in medication adherence over time were baseline adherence and baseline concern beliefs in medicines. CONCLUSION: With baseline adherence and baseline concern beliefs in medicines playing a significant role in determining change in adherence behavior over time, especially in individuals with lower adherence, it is important to alleviate medication concerns at the beginning of therapy for better adherence.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".