Compliance With Prescription Filling in the Pediatric Emergency Department
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the rate of compliance with filling of prescriptions written in a pediatric emergency department and to examine the reasons for not filling the prescriptions. DESIGN: Compliance with filling prescriptions was determined using a follow-up standardized telephone questionnaire, designed so that it was not obvious that assessing prescription filling was the major reason for the study. Compliance herein was defined as having the prescription filled on the same or next day of the pediatric emergency department visit. SETTING: Pediatric emergency department of a tertiary care hospital. SUBJECTS: Pediatric patients discharged home with a drug prescription. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The proportion of prescriptions written in the pediatric emergency department that were filled on either the same or next day as determined by telephone follow-up. This outcome is expressed as a proportion with 95% confidence interval. RESULTS: Follow-up was completed in 1014 (83%) of the 1222 children, aged 4.5 +/- 4.2 (mean +/- SD) years. Compliance with prescription filling was 92.7% (940/1014). Parental reasons for not filling the prescription included medication unnecessary (27%), financial (6.8%), and not enough time (6.8%). Dissatisfaction with the explanation of the medical problem, instructions for treatment, and instructions for follow-up treatment were significantly associated with noncompliance by univariable logistic regression (P<.05). CONCLUSION: The rate of prescription nonfilling in children seen in a pediatric emergency department is at least 7%, although lower than that in adults in a similar setting.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it