Psychosocial Issues Influencing Treatment Adherence in Patients on Multidrug Rescue Therapy: Perspectives from Patients and Their Health Care Providers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multi-drug rescue therapy (MDRT) is often used for the treatment of highly experienced patients who harbor HIV variants with decreased susceptibility to multiple antiretrovirals. Patients on MDRT typically have limited treatment options, and without treatment, their prognosis can be poor. Yet the decision to go on MDRT is not always straightforward as MDRT can be associated with significant challenges including multiple daily doses, higher pill burden, emerging toxicities, and drug interactions. All of these may compromise adherence, which is often a major reason why patients may need MDRT in the first place. Little is known about how patients and health care providers (HCPs) experience MDRT. This study sought to explore areas of convergence and divergence between patients and HCPs in order to identify gaps in treatment and factors that may impact adherence to MDRT. A qualitative interview method based on grounded theory was used. Twelve patients and seven HCPs completed a 60-minute semistructured interview. Patients were asked about challenges, facilitative aspects of staying on MDRT, the decision to initiate treatment, their role, and the role of HCPs in their health care. HCPs were asked about their experience working with MDRT patients, their role, and the role of the patient. Congruent themes emerged from the two groups: developing a working relationship, treatment factors, information requirements, and readiness for treatment. There were no discrepancies in role perspectives. Patients and HCPs agreed on the need to optimize patients' readiness, willingness, and ability to embark on MDRT to maximize adherence. HCPs assumptions about beginning MDRT based solely on medical indications must be checked and discussed to ensure patients' motivation. In conclusion, adherence to MDRT demands a substantial behavior change, recognized as a major challenge by patients. Allocating the time to make a commitment to treatment can optimize adherence. It is therefore crucial that patients be provided with time to make informed decisions, explore and resolve their willingness and readiness to commit to treatment, and maintain supportive relationships with their HCPs, all of which can optimize adherence to MDRT.
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".