Patients’ beliefs about adherence to oral antidiabetic treatment: a qualitative study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to elicit patients' beliefs about taking their oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) as prescribed to inform the development of sound adherence-enhancing interventions. METHODS: A qualitative study was performed. Adults with type 2 diabetes who had been taking an OAD for >3 months were solicited to participate in one of six focus groups. Discussions were facilitated using a structured guide designed to gather beliefs related to important constructs of the theory of planned behavior. Four coders using this theory as the theoretical framework analyzed the videotaped discussions. RESULTS: Forty-five adults participated. The most frequently mentioned advantages for OAD-taking as prescribed were to avoid long-term complications and to control glycemia. Family members were perceived as positively influential. Carrying the OAD at all times, having the OAD in sight, and having a routine were important facilitating factors. Being away from home, not accepting the disease, and not having confidence in the physician's prescription were major barriers to OAD-taking. CONCLUSION: This study elicited several beliefs regarding OAD-taking behavior. Awareness of these beliefs may help clinicians adjust their interventions in view of their patients' beliefs. Moreover, this knowledge is crucial to the planning, development, and evaluation of interventions that aim to improve medication 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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.003 |
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 it