Adherence Devices in a Community Sample: How are Pillboxes Used?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Calendar-packaging devices such as pillboxes (dosettes) and blister packaging are often recommended to seniors, and are commonly used. However, little is known about how they are used. The goal of this project was to investigate how older adults in the community use calendar-packaging adherence devices. Methods: A mail survey of a community sample was used. Analyses addressed 3 research questions. First, the respondents reported on what type of calendar packaging they used. Second, the characteristics of the individuals who used pillboxes and blister packs were compared. Third, the way in which calendar devices were used by these individuals was described. Results: Respondents were 135 community-dwelling older adults (mean age ± standard deviation = 73 ± 9 years). The majority of respondents in the survey (75%) used a pillbox at least some of the time, while a smaller number (13%) used blister packs for at least some of their medications. Respondents who used pillboxes were taking more medications than those who did not. Few of the respondents reported using pillboxes in the recommended way. Only 11% of pillbox users used boxes with multiple slots for each day and, while the majority of respondents (93%) filled their pillboxes themselves, most of these individuals (82%) depended solely on their memory for filling the pillbox and only one individual had a second person check the pillbox for errors. Conclusion: Although pillboxes are often recommended and are widely used, the types of pillboxes chosen and the ways in which they are used may not be optimal to ensure medication adherence. Can Pharm J 2009;142:28–35.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".