Barriers to Adherence in Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis: A Multicenter Collaborative Experience and Preliminary Results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Nonadherence is currently an underrecognized and potentially modifiable obstacle to care in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). The purpose of our study was to design and implement a standardized approach to identifying adherence barriers for youth with JIA across 7 pediatric rheumatology clinics through the Pediatric Rheumatology Care and Outcomes Improvement Network (PR-COIN) and to assess the frequency of adherence barriers in patients and their caregivers across treatment modalities. METHODS: An iterative process using coproduction among parents and providers of patients with JIA was used to design the Barriers Assessment Tool to screen for adherence barriers across 4 treatment modalities (i.e., oral medications, injectable medications, infusions, and physical/occupational therapy). This tool was implemented in 7 rheumatology clinics across the United States and patient responses were collected for analysis. RESULTS: Data were collected from 578 parents and 99 patients (n = 44 parent-child dyads). Seventy-seven percent (n = 444) of caregivers and 70% (n = 69) of patients reported at least 1 adherence barrier across all treatment components. The most commonly reported adherence barriers included worry about future consequences of therapy, pain, forgetting, side effects, and embarrassment related to the therapy. There was no significant difference between endorsement of barriers between parents and adolescents. CONCLUSION: Implementing a standardized tool assessing adherence barriers in the JIA population across multiple clinical settings is feasible. Systematic screening sheds light on the factors that make adherence difficult in JIA and identifies targets for future adherence interventions in clinical practice.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".