A Cross-Sectional Study of Cognitive Function, Illness Perceptions, and Immunosuppression Medication Adherence After Heart Transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are few studies that examine relationships between cognitive function, illness perceptions, and medication adherence after heart transplantation, limiting the development of effective adherence-promoting interventions. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to describe relationships between cognitive function, illness perceptions, and medication adherence among heart transplant recipients. METHODS: A cross-sectional, observational design was used. Measures included the telephone-Montreal Cognitive Assessment (t-MoCA©), Patient Health Questionnaire-9, Brief Test of Adult Cognition by Telephone, Basel Assessment of Adherence to Immunosuppressive Medications Scale, and the Brief Illness Perceptions Questionnaire. Descriptive statistics, point-biserial correlations, Pearson's correlations, and logistic regression were used to describe relationships. RESULTS: Of the 35 participants (mean age: 61 years [SD: 10.3], 71.4% male, 71.4% white), 31.4% (n = 11) were classified as nonadherent to their immunosuppression medications. Higher immediate word recall, indicating better episodic memory (memory for autobiographical and recent events), and higher illness coherence scores were associated with not missing doses of medication. Higher t-MoCA© total scores, indicating normal cognitive function, and lower depression scores were associated with taking medications on time. More than 22% (n = 8) of participants scored less than 19 on the t-MoCA©, an indication of mild cognitive impairment. CONCLUSION: Cognitive impairment may be more common among heart transplant recipients than what is currently recognized, and specific domains of cognitive function were related to medication adherence after transplantation in this study. Future studies should include longitudinal evaluations of cognitive function, depression, and medication adherence. Consideration of these relationships is needed when designing adherence-promoting interventions for this population.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".