Using Focus Groups to Identify Barriers to Drug Use in Patients with Congestive Heart Failure
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
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To explore barriers to adherence to drug therapy identified by patients with congestive heart failure (CHF). SETTING: University-associated heart failure clinic and a family practice clinic. PATIENTS: Twenty-six patients with CHF. INTERVENTION: Four focus group sessions. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Participants were asked to describe how their lives changed as a result of developing CHF and the challenges they face when taking drugs for the condition. In the second half of each session, participants were asked for their opinions regarding various teaching and memory aids for improving adherence with therapy. They recognized the value of these aids and often created their own when health care professionals did not supply them. Transcripts were reviewed and comments grouped to identify patient-perceived barriers to adherence. The disease placed significant limitations on lifestyle. Furosemide had dramatic effects on daily activities, and some patients altered the dosing schedule to accommodate their plans. Influences on adherence were generalized into five themes: confidence in health care providers; their own knowledge regarding the disease and drugs used to treat it; previous experience with drugs; support from family and friends; and ease of communication with health care professionals. CONCLUSION: Focus groups are an effective and efficient method to explore patients opinions of barriers to drug therapy adherence. Such information can have a direct impact on management of patients with CHF. Information gathered in this study will be used to construct a survey to measure barriers to drug adherence and design interventions to improve 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 it