Primary prescription adherence for obstructive lung disease in a primary care population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to determine primary prescription adherence for obstructive lung diseases (e.g., asthma, COPD) in an adult primary care patient population over a 3-year period. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of electronic medical record and administrative data was performed to determine primary adherence, defined as dispensation of a new prescription within 90 days of the date the prescription was written. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to test predictors of prescription primary adherence. RESULTS: Of 13,220 prescriptions for obstructive airway disease, 75.9% (N = 10,038) were filled. In multivariate analysis, depression, certain age groups (18-44 years), higher income quartile were associated with reduced prescription adherence. However, 1-2 ER visits in the previous year (compared to no ER visits), number of ambulatory visits in the previous year, and number of hospitalizations in the previous year, did not increase the likelihood of prescription adherence. INTERPRETATION: This study provides important insights about factors associated with prescription nonadherence and is the first study examining primary medication adherence with medications for obstructive lung disease in adults, providing indications of prescription nonadherence patterns among a broad population.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".