A 2-hour Information Session and Patient Recall has Minimal Impact on Glaucoma-treatment Persistence in a Mature Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To study the impact of a 2-hour information session and 3 patients' phone calls on patient persistence with glaucoma medication. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All patients with glaucoma treatment, part of a 27-year old solo glaucoma practice, were invited to attend the information session. Patients who attended the session (n=342) were contacted by phone 1, 4, 10 months later and regular use of drops was stressed. Patients were unaware of the study. We compared the persistence of the patients before and after attending the session, and their persistence to that of patients who did not attend (n=1187). Persistence with glaucoma medication was assessed by examination of data (2002 to 2007) from a provincial medical and drug insurance database. RESULTS: Patients attending the session had glaucoma for 10 years. They had a better persistence than those who did not attend (P<0.05). Their persistence remained the same 1 year after attending the session but tended to be improved in the first 180 days (P<0.076). During the study period, there was a 4% increase in overall persistence (P<0.05). This could be due to an increase in prostaglandins prescriptions and changes in β-blockers formulation. CONCLUSIONS: The information session and patient's recalls had a limited impact on patient persistence. This could be due to the selection of a population already persistent (78.9%). The results could have been different in less persistent patients and new patients. It could be different in another practice 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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".