Validation of a Self-Reported Questionnaire Assessing Adherence to Antiretroviral Medication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to verify the validity of a new self-reported questionnaire designed to assess nonadherence to antiretroviral medication among patients with HIV. Two hundred fifty-six patients from four clinics participated in a prospective longitudinal study. The questionnaire was designed to measure if patients with HIV were taking less than the total number of antiretroviral pills prescribed by their physician. Change in viral load was used as the criterion for validity analyses. Self-reported adherence, viral load and CD4 cell count were assessed at T0 (baseline), T3 (3-month), and T6 (6-month). The findings indicated that the questionnaire had adequate validity (sensitivity, 71%; specificity, 72%; correct classification, 72%; odd ratio, 6.15). These best values were obtained when the analyses excluded individuals with an unstable viral load and a CD4 cell count of less than 200 copies per milliliter over the 6-month follow-up period. This study has shown that this questionnaire has satisfactory psychometric qualities to assess nonadherence to antiretroviral medication among patients with HIV. The questionnaire is brief, simple, and can be used in both clinical or research settings regardless of the patients' antiretroviral regimens.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".