MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Targeting the problem of treatment non-adherence among mentally ill patients: The impact of loss, grief and stigma

2020· article· en· W3029187369 on OpenAlexaff
Tzipi Buchman-Wildbaum, Enikő Váradi, Ágoston Schmelowszky, Mark D. Griffiths, Zsolt Demetrovics, Róbert Urbán

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychiatry Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Treatment and Access
Canadian institutionsHealth Care Foundation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGriefStigma (botany)Mentally illPsychologyPsychotherapistPsychiatryClinical psychologySocial stigmaMedicineMental healthMental illnessFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study examined the factor structure of the Hungarian version of the Medication Adherence Rating Scale (MARS) and analyzed its association with socio-demographics, insight, internalized stigma, and the experience of loss and grief as a result of the mental illness diagnosis, using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with a series of one covariates at a time. Mentally ill patients (N=200) completed self-report questionnaires. CFA supported the original three-factor structure although one item was moved from its original factor to another. Lower insight, higher internalized stigma, loss, and grief were significant predictors of lower treatment adherence. Lower adherence was found to be significantly associated with lower quality of life. No difference in adherence was found between different diagnostic groups, which stresses the need to examine non-adherence in the wider spectrum of mental diagnosis. The study also stresses the importance of patients' subjective experience in promoting better adherence, and raises the need to address the experience of stigma but also of less studied experiences, such as patients' feelings of loss and grief. Integrating these experiences in intervention programs might have meaningful implications for the improvement of treatment adherence and patients' quality of life.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.926

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.069
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.362 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations54
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychiatry ResearchSame topicMental Health Treatment and AccessFrench-language works237,207