Validity of Self-Reported Adherence Among Injection Drug Users
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In Vancouver, the availability of prescription refill data for all HIV-infected individuals plus a prospective cohort of injection drug users (IDUs) permitted an examination of the validity of self-reported highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) adherence among IDUs. METHODS: Self-reported HAART adherence among Vancouver Injection Drug Users Study participants was compared with pharmacy refill rates from the British Columbia Drug Treatment Program database. Pearson's correlation coefficient and Pearson's chi(2) test were used to assess associations between adherence as measured by self-report and pharmacy refill data. RESULTS: Among 88 HIV-infected IDUs, 48 (55%) had an adherence rate of > or =75% as measured by pharmacy refill adherence, whereas 81 (92%) had an adherence rate of > or =75% as measured by self-report. Self-reported adherence was not statistically associated with pharmacy refill adherence (P > .1). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that the validity of self-report measures may be limited when applied to community-recruited IDUs.
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 | 0.005 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".