Protocol for a randomised controlled trial evaluating the effects of providing essential medicines at no charge: the Carefully seLected and Easily Accessible at No Charge Medicines (CLEAN Meds) trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Cost-related non-adherence to medicines is common in low-income, middle-income and high-income countries such as Canada. Medicine non-adherence is associated with poor health outcomes and increased mortality. This randomised trial will test the impact of a carefully selected list of essential medicines at no charge (compared with usual medicine access) in primary care patients reporting cost-related non-adherence. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is an open-label, parallel two-arm, superiority, individually randomised controlled trial conducted in three primary care sites (one urban, two rural) in Ontario, Canada, that was codesigned by a community guidance panel. Adult patients (≥18 years) who report cost-related non-adherence to medicines are eligible to participate in the study. Participants will be randomised to receive free and convenient access to a carefully selected list of 125 essential medicines (based on the WHO's Model List of Essential Medicines) or usual means of medicine access. Care for patients in both groups will otherwise be unchanged. The primary outcome of this trial is adherence to appropriately prescribed medicines. Secondary outcomes include medicine adherence, appropriate prescribing, blood pressure, haemoglobin A1c, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, patient-oriented outcomes and healthcare costs. All participants will be followed for at least 12 months. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was obtained in all three participating sites. Results of the main trial and secondary outcomes will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and discussed with members of the public and decision makers. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02744963.
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 | 0.055 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.164 | 0.037 |
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".