Assessing Parents’ Needs in Using Phone Applications to Improve Medication Adherence in an Outpatient Pediatric Oncology Clinic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Poor adherence in pediatric oncology leads to significant morbidity and mortality. Currently used medication reminder aids have shown little to no benefit in improving adherence. Phone applications (apps) have demonstrated improved adherence in recent studies involving the adult and pediatric patients. At this time, no pediatric oncology center is recommending a particular phone app. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the proportion of parents of pediatric oncology patients interested in using a phone app for medication reminders and desired features. METHODS: In this single-center observational trial, 45 questionnaires were completed by parents accompanying their child at a pediatric oncology center. See Supplemental Digital Content 1 (http://links.lww.com/JPHO/A327) for a copy of the questionnaire. Participants had a child on active cancer treatment and were able to read and write English. Primary outcomes included a number of parents currently using a phone app, the number of parents interested in using a phone app, main reasons for not using a phone app and desired phone app features. RESULTS: Overall, 95.6% of parents had never used a phone app to aid in medication adherence. Over 85% of these parents were highly interested in using a phone app, but most were not aware of available phone apps to use (57.1%). Desired features included: refill notifications, tracking doses administered, personalizable medication schedule, free of charge, no advertisements, ability to input special instructions, use on multiple devices, unique alarms, tracking child's results, and privacy protection. CONCLUSIONS: A majority of parents at an outpatient pediatric oncology clinic were interested in using a phone app to assist in medication adherence but were unaware of an available phone app. An ideal criteria list was created with 10 desired features to evaluate available phone apps that may be recommended for this population. Further studies are needed to evaluate if phone apps recommended by this tool improve adherence.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".