MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3161987134 · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1003590

Adherence at 2 years with distribution of essential medicines at no charge: The CLEAN Meds randomized clinical trial

2021· article· en· W3161987134 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Nav Persaud, Michael Bedard, Andrew Boozary, Richard H. Glazier, Tara Gomes, Stephen W. Hwang, Peter Jüni, Michael R. Law, Muhammad Mamdani, Braden Manns, Danielle Martin, Steven G. Morgan, Paul Oh, Andrew D. Pinto, Baiju R. Shah, Frank Sullivan, Norman Umali, Kevin E. Thorpe, Karen Tu, Andreas Laupacis

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS Medicine · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedication Adherence and Compliance
Canadian institutionsNorth York General HospitalToronto Rehabilitation InstituteWomen's College HospitalUniversity Health NetworkLibin Cardiovascular Institute of AlbertaVector InstituteUniversity of CalgaryInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesUniversity of British ColumbiaNOSM UniversityPublic Health OntarioUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersHealth CanadaAbbott VascularMedicines CompanySt. Jude MedicalBiosensors International GroupAmgenSt. Michael's Hospital FoundationSt. Michael’s Hospital FoundationEli Lilly and CompanyCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchOntario SPOR SUPPORT Unit
KeywordsMedicinePopulationRandomized controlled trialConfidence intervalClinical trialBlood pressureDiabetes mellitusInternal medicineFamily medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Adherence to medicines is low for a variety of reasons, including the cost borne by patients. Some jurisdictions publicly fund medicines for the general population, but many jurisdictions do not, and such policies are contentious. To our knowledge, no trials studying free access to a wide range of medicines have been conducted. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We randomly assigned 786 primary care patients who reported not taking medicines due to cost between June 1, 2016 and April 28, 2017 to either free distribution of essential medicines (n = 395) or to usual medicine access (n = 391). The trial was conducted in Ontario, Canada, where hospital care and physician services are publicly funded for the general population but medicines are not. The trial population was mostly female (56%), younger than 65 years (83%), white (66%), and had a low income from wages as the primary source (56%). The primary outcome was medicine adherence after 2 years. Secondary outcomes included control of diabetes, blood pressure, and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol in patients taking relevant treatments and healthcare costs over 2 years. Adherence to all appropriate prescribed medicines was 38.7% in the free distribution group and 28.6% in the usual access group after 2 years (absolute difference 10.1%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.3 to 16.9, p = 0.004). There were no statistically significant differences in control of diabetes (hemoglobin A1c 0.27; 95% CI -0.25 to 0.79, p = 0.302), systolic blood pressure (-3.9; 95% CI -9.9 to 2.2, p = 0.210), or LDL cholesterol (0.26; 95% CI -0.08 to 0.60, p = 0.130) based on available data. Total healthcare costs over 2 years were lower with free distribution (difference in median CAN$1,117; 95% CI CAN$445 to CAN$1,778, p = 0.006). In the free distribution group, 51 participants experienced a serious adverse event, while 68 participants in the usual access group experienced a serious adverse event (p = 0.091). Participants were not blinded, and some outcomes depended on participant reports. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed that free distribution of essential medicines to patients with cost-related nonadherence substantially increased adherence, did not affect surrogate health outcomes, and reduced total healthcare costs over 2 years. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations21
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS MedicineSame topicMedication Adherence and ComplianceFrench-language works237,207