Categorizing factors of adherence to parenteral treatment in growth hormone deficiencies and hemophilia: What should be the targets for future research?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adherence to treatment regimens in growth hormone dysregulations and hemophilia is related to better outcome and fewer complications over time. Subcutaneous growth hormone injection and intravenous blood factor replacement therapies are parenteral treatments with a comparable regimen calling for similar behavioral processes. Although we have lists of possible factors influencing adherence in these conditions, the evidence is scattered. The objective of this study was to systematically review empirical studies linking factors of adherence with measures of adherence. To categorize the factors, we used a taxonomy from the diabetes literature. We used four major electronic databases to identify articles. We synthesized 27 articles dated 2011-2017 corresponding to inclusion criteria. Results showed a consistent proportion of 20%-25% participants with adherent issues. Strong arguments pointed to the transition to self-care in pediatrics as a vulnerability period (7/27 reports). We found the domains of individual factors (<30% reports), relational factors (<13%), health care (<30%), to be understudied in comparison with that of demographic or clinical context (>74%), and practical issues (>37%). The results suggest that future research should focus on modifiable factors of adherence, with appropriate measurement and intervention strategies. One central methodological limitation of reviewed reports was the lack of longitudinal designs, and the quasi absence of behavioral trial targeting modifiable factors of adherence. A new research agenda should be set in these rare diseases as higher adherence should translate into improved outcome and better quality of life for patients and their families.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".