Direct and Indirect Predictors of Medication Adherence With Bipolar Disorder: Path Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the efficacy of treatment and severity of symptoms, medication adherence by many with bipolar disorder (BD) is variable at best. This poses a significant challenge for BD care management. OBJECTIVE: For this study, we set out to identify psychosocial and psychiatric predictors of medication adherence with BD. METHODS: Using microtargeted social media advertising, we recruited an international sample of young and older adults with BD living in North America (Canada and the United States), Western Europe (eg, United Kingdom and Ireland), Australia and New Zealand (N=92). On average, participants were 55.35 (SD 9.65; range 22-73) years of age, had been diagnosed with BD 14.25 (SD 11.14; range 1-46) years ago, and were currently prescribed 2.40 (SD 1.28; range 0-6) psychotropic medications. Participants completed questionnaires online including the Morisky Medication Adherence Scale. RESULTS: Medication adherence did not significantly differ across BD subtypes, country of residence, or prescription of lithium versus other mood stabilizers (eg, anticonvulsants). Path analyses indicate that alcohol misuse and subjective or perceived cognitive failures are direct predictors of medication adherence. BD symptoms, psychological well-being, and the number of comorbid psychiatric conditions emerged as indirect predictors of medication adherence via perceived cognitive failures. CONCLUSIONS: Alcohol misuse did not predict perceived cognitive failures. Nor did age predict medication adherence or cognitive failures. This is noteworthy given the 51-year age range of participants. That is, persons in their 20s with BD reported similar levels of medication adherence and perceived cognitive failures as those in their 60s. This suggests that perceived cognitive loss is a facet of adult life with BD, in contrast to the assumption that accelerated cognitive aging with BD begins in midlife.
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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 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".