Care processes and structures associated with higher medication adherence in adolescent and young adult transplant recipients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background We aimed to identify care processes and structures that were independently associated with higher medication adherence among young transplant recipients. Methods We conducted a prospective, observational cohort study of 270 prevalent kidney, liver, and heart transplant recipients 14–25 years old. Patients were ≥3 months post‐transplant, ≥2 months post‐discharge, and followed in one of 14 pediatric or 14 adult transplant programs in Canada. Patients were enrolled between June 2015 and March 2018 and followed for 6 months. Adherence was assessed at baseline, 3, and 6 months using the BAASIS © self‐report tool. Patients were classified as adherent if no doses were missed in the prior 4 weeks. Transplant program directors and nurses completed questionnaires regarding care organization and processes. Results Of the 270 participants, 99 were followed in pediatric programs and 171 in adult programs. Median age was 20.3 years, and median time since transplant was 5 years. At baseline, 71.5% were adherent. Multivariable mixed effects logistic regression models with program as a random effect identified two program‐level factors as independently associated with better adherence: minimum number of prescribed blood draws per year for those >3 years post‐transplant (per 1 additional) (OR 1.12 [95% CI 1.00, 1.26]; p = .047), and average time nurses spend with patients in clinic (per 5 additional minutes) (OR 1.15 [1.03, 1.29]; p = .017). Conclusion Program‐level factors including protocols with a greater frequency of routine blood testing and more nurse time with patients were associated with better medication adherence. This suggests that interventions at the program level may support better 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".