Identifying determinants of medication adherence following myocardial infarction using the Theoretical Domains Framework and the Health Action Process Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite evidence-based recommendations, adherence with secondary prevention medications post-myocardial infarction (MI) remains low. Taking medication requires behaviour change, and using behavioural theories to identify what factors determine adherence could help to develop novel adherence interventions. OBJECTIVE: Compare the utility of different behaviour theory-based approaches for identifying modifiable determinants of medication adherence post-MI that could be targeted by interventions. METHODS: Two studies were conducted with patients 0-2, 3-12, 13-24 or 25-36 weeks post-MI. Study 1: 24 patients were interviewed about barriers and facilitators to medication adherence. Interviews were conducted and coded using the Theoretical Domains Framework. Study 2: 201 patients answered a telephone questionnaire assessing Health Action Process Approach constructs to predict intention and medication adherence (MMAS-8). RESULTS: Study 1: domains identified: Beliefs about Consequences, Memory/Attention/Decision Processes, Behavioural Regulation, Social Influences and Social Identity. Study 2: 64, 59, 42 and 58% reported high adherence at 0-2, 3-12, 13-24 and 25-36 weeks. Social Support and Action Planning predicted adherence at all time points, though the relationship between Action Planning and adherence decreased over time. CONCLUSIONS: Using two behaviour theory-based approaches provided complimentary findings and identified modifiable factors that could be targeted to help translate Intention into action to improve medication adherence post-MI.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".