What does the literature say about using electronic pillboxes for older adults? A systematic literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study is to answer two research questions: (1) What is the clinical evidence for the reported outcomes in studies on electronic pillboxes for older adults? and (2) What is the technology readiness level (TRL) of the electronic pillboxes used, or intended to be used, for older adults?Methods: The scholarly literature was systematically searched and analyzed. Articles were included if they reported results about electronic pillboxes that were used or intended to be used for older adults’ medication.Results: Clinical studies used commercially well-established electronic pillboxes with a high TRL. New electronic pillboxes in development had a low TRL. The discovered outcome was mainly adherence to medication. The overall mean adherence to medication regimens for all the studies using an electronic pillbox was higher than the gold standard of a good adherence level cut-off point (mean adherence 88.8%>80%). However, we found a large variation in this variable (SD = 10.7). With regard to an older adult population’s adherence to medication regimens, for the outcome variable of those who had undergone a kidney transplant, the clinical evidence that electronic pillboxes have a positive impact was strong (1b); for those with a chronic hepatitis C medical condition, the clinical evidence was medium (3), and for those with arterial hypertension and multiple chronic (diabetes and hypertension) medical conditions, the clinical evidence was weak (5).Conclusion: More research is needed in this area using designs that provide greater validity.Implications for RehabilitationElectronic pillboxes with multiple reminders such as the “voice of a friend” or relative, which implies that electronic pillboxes which adopt “a social role” are advisable.An unequal level of clinical evidence that electronic pillboxes have a positive impact on the adherence outcome variable was found.For new electronic pillboxes still in development that specifically take into account older adults’ needs, the TRL is still low; as a result, they could not be tested in real settings.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".