Preliminary Validity of the Barriers to Treatment Adherence Questionnaire in Fibromyalgia: Combining Quantitative and Focus Group Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goals of this study were to (1) provide preliminary reliability and validity of the Barriers to Treatment Adherence Questionnaire, developed for patients with fibromyalgia, and (2) examine barriers to adherence and general adherence to multimodal treatment during a 3-mo. period. A secondary goal was to explore in a focus discussion group format patients' perceptions of the adherence process and ways of managing the treatment program. 39 fibromyalgia patients were followed while participating in a combined outpatient program of physiotherapy, occupational therapy, nursing, and cognitive behavioral therapy. The Barriers to Treatment Adherence Questionnaire demonstrated good reliability. Construct validity of the Barriers to Treatment Adherence Questionnaire was supported through significant positive correlations with the General Adherence Scale at Months 1 and 3. In addition, a significant change was observed in scores on the Barriers to Treatment Adherence Questionnaire for the physiotherapy component of treatment, with scores decreasing between Months 2 and 3. Addressing barriers to improve adherence may maximize the benefit of treatment programs.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".