A randomized controlled trial of the effectiveness of planning strategies in the adherence to medication for coronary artery disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To examine the effect of action and coping planning strategies in the adherence to medication among outpatients with coronary artery disease. BACKGROUND: Action and coping planning strategies are based on implementation intention, which requires self-regulation by the individual, to prioritize intentionally planned responses over learned or habitual ones, from daily routines to stressful situations. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Participants (n = 115) were randomized into intervention (use of action and coping planning strategies, n = 59) or control (usual care, n = 56) groups. The study was conducted between June 2010-May 2011 in two in-person visits: baseline and 2-month follow-up. Participants in the intervention group received telephone reinforcement between baseline and 2-month follow-up. Adherence to medication for cardioprotection and symptoms relief was evaluated by proportion of adherence, global measure of adherence evaluation and Morisky Self-Reported Measure of Medication Adherence Scale at both baseline and 2-month follow-up. FINDINGS: When using the measure of global measure of adherence, participants in the intervention group reported adherence to therapy more often than controls (odds ratio = 5.3), but no statistically significant change was observed in the other two outcome measures. CONCLUSION: This study has shown that individuals who use action and coping planning report higher adherence to drug treatment, when measured by the global adherence evaluation. Further studies with longer follow-ups are needed to assess if the effect of planning strategies has long-term duration.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".