Patients’ Beliefs About Their Cardiovascular Medications After Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Prospective Observational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Adherence to secondary preventive pharmacotherapy after an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is generally poor and is associated with recurrent cardiovascular events. Patients' beliefs about their medications are a strong predictor of intentional nonadherence. Methods: This prospective, observational study assessed adult patients' beliefs about their post-ACS medications, using the Beliefs About Medicines Questionnaire (BMQ), and adherence, using the Medication Adherence Report Scale (MARS-5) at St. Paul's Hospital in Vancouver, Canada during May-December, 2022. The BMQ and MARS-5 were administered in-hospital and at 4 weeks after discharge. Outcomes included difference in BMQ necessity-concerns differential (BMQ-NCD) from hospitalization to 4-week follow-up and factors associated with the BMQ-NCD. Results: = 0.002). South Asian and Middle Eastern ethnic origins, compared to European, were associated with a higher BMQ-NCD. Part-time employment and male sex were associated with a lower BMQ-NCD. Conclusions: Participants held favourable beliefs about their post-ACS medications, which were largely unchanged from hospitalization to 4 weeks postdischarge, except for beliefs about the necessity of taking their medications. Those of European descent, those with part-time employment, and males had the lowest BMQ-NCD. Self-reported adherence was high. Ongoing reassessment of patients' beliefs about the necessity of taking their post-ACS medications may be warranted to mitigate further decline in BMQ-NCD.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".