MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4250065668 · doi:10.36315/2021pad24

IMPROVING THE HEALTH BEHAVIOURS OF COPD PATIENTS: IS HEALTH LITERACY THE ANSWER?

2020· book-chapter· en· W4250065668 on OpenAlexafffund
Tracy A. Freeze, Leanne Skerry, Emily Kervin, Andrew Brillant, Jennifer Woodland, Natasha Hanson

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in psychology and psychological trends · 2020
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility
Canadian institutionsHorizon Health Network
FundersFondation de la recherche en santé du Nouveau-BrunswickAstraZeneca
KeywordsHealth literacyMedicineChinCOPDFocus groupQualitative researchPhysical therapyGerontologyHealth careInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality (Vogelmeier et al., 2017). Adherence to prescribed medications and adequate medication inhalation technique (MIT) is critical for optimal management of COPD, as is the proper use of the medication delivery device.O’Conor et al. (2019) found that lower health literacy (HL) was associated with both poor medication adherenceand MIT. HL, according to the Process-Knowledge Model, consists of both processing capacity and knowledge (Chin et al., 2017). COPD most commonly occurs in older adults (Cazzola, Donner, & Hanania, 2007). Older adults tend to have lower processing capacity (Chin et al., 2017). The purpose of this study was to determine if HL was associated with medication refill adherence (MRA)and/or MIT. Fifty-seven participants completed a questionnaire package that included demographic questions, measures of HL, and assessments of MRA and MIT. A subset of twenty patients participated in qualitative interviews. Results indicated that lower HL was associated with both lower MRA and poor MIT, and qualitative findings revealed the need for further information. Future research should focus on testing educational materials that have been designed and/or reformatted to meet the lower processing capacity of older adults.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.936
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.507
Teacher spread0.419 · 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.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in psychology and psychological trendsSame topicHealth Literacy and Information AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207