Self-Reported Morisky Score for Identifying Nonadherence with Cardiovascular Medications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Morisky medication adherence scale is a commonly used adherence screening tool. It is composed of 4 yes/no questions about past medication use patterns and is thus quick and simple to use during drug history interviews. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the use of the self-reported Morisky score as a screening tool for identifying patients who have been nonadherent with chronic cardiovascular medications. METHODS: Patients who had taken an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or lipid-lowering agent for at least 3 consecutive months were interviewed using a structured questionnaire including the Morisky scale. Nonadherence was defined as taking < 80% of chronic cardiovascular medications based on prescription refill data over the previous 14 months. RESULTS: Forty-nine of 377 (13%) patients were categorized as nonadherent; however, only 12 (3%) patients had Morisky scores suggesting a high likelihood of nonadherence (3 or 4). While the Morisky score was a significant independent predictor of nonadherence by multivariate analysis, there was no threshold score or individual question that yielded concurrent high sensitivity and positive predictive values (PPVs) for identifying nonadherent patients. The internal consistency of the questions was low (alpha 0.32), as were item-to-total score correlations, suggesting that the individual questions were not measuring the same attribute. CONCLUSIONS: Using the Morisky scale to identify patients who have been nonadherent with chronic cardiovascular medications may be reasonable in some settings; however, the threshold score would have to be chosen based on a trade-off between sensitivity and PPV. These results were likely influenced by the low rate of nonadherence in this cohort. Rewording the questions, increasing the number of questions, and the use of graded response options may improve consistency.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".