MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098445113 · doi:10.1093/rheumatology/keh141

Medication non-adherence in women with fibromyalgia

2004· article· en· W2098445113 on OpenAlexafffund
Maida Sewitch

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish journal of rheumatology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersArthritis Society
KeywordsMedicinePsychosocialFibromyalgiaCoping (psychology)Physical therapyFamily medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To identify the determinants of medication non-adherence in women with fibromyalgia (FM). METHODS: Participants included 10 rheumatologists and 127 women recruited from tertiary care hospitals and the community. Demographic, clinical and psychosocial characteristics and patient-physician discordance were assessed at the baseline visit. Non-adherence was assessed 2 weeks later. Multivariable generalized estimating equations were used to identify determinants of non-adherence to medication. RESULTS: The average age of the women was 50.4 (s.d. 10.5) yr and the mean disability score was 60.3 (16.0) yr. Sixty (47.2%) women were non-adherent to medication; 20 (33.3%) of these were intentionally non-adherent, 24 (40.0%) were unintentionally non-adherent, and the remaining subjects were both. Overall non-adherence was predicted by higher patient-physician discordance. Unintentional non-adherence was predicted by community subjects, not being under a rheumatologist's care, less disease activity, less use of instrumental coping, and higher patient-physician discordance. Intentional non-adherence was predicted by shorter duration under a rheumatologist's care and higher patient-physician discordance. CONCLUSION: The therapeutic relationship, in addition to clinical and psychosocial characteristics, influenced non-adherence to medication.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.312
Threshold uncertainty score0.363

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.255 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations75
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish journal of rheumatologySame topicFibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome ResearchFrench-language works237,207