Prevalence of non-adherence among psychiatric patients in Jordan, a cross sectional study
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
BACKGROUND: It has been estimated that up to 50% of any patient population is at least partially non-adherent to their prescribed treatment. Identifying barriers to adherence is required to develop effective interventions for psychiatric patients. OBJECTIVE: To explore the prevalence and factors of non-adherence among psychiatric patients present at four psychiatric clinics. METHOD: A cross-sectional questionnaire-based study. A sample of psychiatric patients attending outpatient psychiatric clinics was enrolled between March and April 2011. RESULTS: A total of 243 psychiatric patients took part in this study with the majority of patients (92.5%) being prescribed more than one psychiatric disorder. The majority (64.2%) of the patients was classified as non-adherent according to the Morisky adherence questionnaire and forgetfulness was the most prevalent reason for that. CONCLUSIONS: Non-adherence is a common and important issue among psychiatric patients. Polypharmacy, safety concerns and lack of insight towards the prescribed treatment were reported as the main reasons of non-adherence.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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