Risk Factors for Suboptimal Adherence Identified by Patient-Reported Outcomes Assessments in Routine HIV Care at 2 North American Clinics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Use of patient-reported outcomes assessments (PROs) can improve patient-provider communication and focus provider attention on current health issues. This analysis examines the association between suboptimal antiretroviral therapy (ART) adherence and factors obtained through PROs among people with HIV (PWH) at 2 North American outpatient clinics. Patients and Methods: Immediately before a clinic visit, PWH completed self-administered PROs. Unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated from logistic regression models to identify sociodemographic and health-related factors (satisfaction with ART, difficulty meeting housing costs, depression, intimate partner violence, risk of malnutrition, smoking status, alcohol use, and substance use) associated with suboptimal adherence (defined as self-reporting <95% or <80% adherence). Multiple imputation was performed to account for missing data in the multivariate analyses. Results: Of 1632 PWH, 1239 (76%) responded to the adherence assessment; of these, 268 (22%) and 106 (9%) reported <95% and <80% adherence, respectively. Of 1580 PWH who responded, 354 (22%) were dissatisfied with their HIV medication. Of responding PWH, 19% reported moderate-to-severe depression, 23% indicated they were at risk of malnutrition, 34% were current smokers, and 62% reported substance use in the past 3 months. Dissatisfaction with ART was significantly associated with <95% and <80% adherence in the unadjusted analysis (unadjusted OR [95% CI], 3.38 [2.51-4.56] and 4.26 [2.82-6.42], respectively) and adjusted analysis (adjusted OR [95% CI], 2.76 [1.91-4.00] and 3.28 [1.95-5.52], respectively); significance remained after multiple imputation. In adjusted analyses, no risk of malnutrition was significantly associated with reduced odds of <95% adherence after multiple imputation (adjusted OR [95% CI], 0.714 [0.511-0.997]); no other factors were associated with <95% or <80% adherence. Conclusion: These results suggest that implementation of PROs evaluating treatment satisfaction may provide value to adherence management in routine HIV care.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".