Patients’ Perceptions of Electronic Monitoring Devices Affect Medication Adherence in Hypertensive African Americans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Electronic monitoring devices (EMDs) are regarded as the gold standard for assessing medication adherence in clinical research. However, little is known about the effect of patients' acceptance of EMDs on medication adherence in African Americans with hypertension who are followed in primary care practices OBJECTIVE: To assess patients' perceptions of EMDs, their acceptance of EMDs, and the relationship of these perceptions to medication adherence in African Americans with hypertension who are followed in community-based practices. METHODS: Patients were recruited from a larger randomized controlled trial assessing the effect of motivational interviewing on medication adherence and blood pressure in hypertensive African American patients followed in 2 New York City primary care practices. Medication adherence was assessed with a Medication Event Monitoring System (MEMS) during a 12-month monitoring period. At the 12-month follow-up, patients' perceptions of the MEMS were assessed with a 17-item questionnaire. ANOVA was used to compare patients' responses (agree, neither, disagree) with the MEMS adherence over the monitoring period. Tukey's post hoc tests were used to determine whether there were significant differences among the 3 groups. RESULTS: Participants were predominantly women, low-income, unemployed, had a high school education, and were a mean age of 53 years. Approximately two-thirds of the participants stated that the MEMS helped them remember to take their medications, 93% reported that the MEMS was easy to open, 85% did not find it stressful, and 75% liked the MEMS and used it everyday. One-third of patients preferred using a pillbox and 25% did not like traveling with the MEMS. Patients who stated that they used the MEMS every day, felt comfortable using it in front of others, and remembered to put refills in the MEMS had significantly better adherence over the study period than did those who disagreed (p </= 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: African American patients treated for hypertension in community-based practices held positive perceptions about a MEMS. Perceptions about the practicality of a MEMS may yield important information about actual medication-taking behavior.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".