MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393222190 · doi:10.1186/s12877-024-04893-7

Tools to measure barriers to medication management capacity in older adults: a scoping review

2024· review· en· W4393222190 on OpenAlexafffund
Bincy Baby, Annette McKinnon, Kirk Patterson, Hawa Patel, Rishabh Sharma, Caitlin Carter, Ryan Griffin, Catherine M. Burns, Feng Chang, Sara J. T. Guilcher, Linda Lee, Sara Abu Fadaleh, Tejal Patel

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Geriatrics · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedication Adherence and Compliance
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaOntario Stroke NetworkMcMaster UniversityUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNational Research Council CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchGovernment of Canada
KeywordsCINAHLPsycINFOMEDLINEChecklistMedicineInclusion (mineral)CognitionScopusClinical psychologyPsychologyPsychological interventionNursingPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Medication management capacity is a crucial component of medication adherence, particularly among older adults. Various factors, including physical abilities, cognitive functions, sensory capabilities, motivational, and environmental factors, influence older adults' ability to manage medications. It is, therefore, crucial to identify appropriate tools that allow clinicians to determine which factors may impact medication management capacity and, consequently, nonadherence to medications. PURPOSE: 1)To identify tools that measure physical, cognitive, sensory (vision, hearing, touch), motivational, and environmental barriers to medication self-management in older adults, and 2) to understand the extent to which these tools assess various barriers. METHODS: The scoping review was conducted using Arksey and O'Malley's scoping review framework and the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews checklist. In June 2022, the relevant literature was identified by searching PubMed (MEDLINE), Ovid Embase, Ovid IPA, EBSCOhost CINAHL, APA PsycINFO, and Scopus. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: In total, 7235 studies were identified. Following the removal of duplicates, 4607 articles were screened by title and abstract, of which 4253 did not meet the inclusion criteria. Three reviewers reviewed the full texts of the remaining 354 articles; among them, 41 articles, 4 theses and 1 conference abstract met the inclusion criteria. From the included studies, 44 tools were identified that measured a combination of physical, cognitive, sensory, motivational, and environmental barriers (n=19) or only cognition (n=13), vision (n=5), environmental factors (n=3), auditory (n=1), and motivational factors (n=1). The review also examined the psychometric properties of the identified tools and found that most of them had reported validity and reliability data. Several tools have demonstrated promise in assessing a combination of barriers with validity and reliability. These tools include the Self-Medication Assessment Tool (SMAT), ManageMed Screening (MMS), Self-Medication Risk Assessment Tool (RAT), HOME-Rx revised, and Medication Management Ability Assessment (MMAA). CONCLUSION: This scoping review identified 44 validated tools to measure various challenges that older adults encounter with medication management. However, no tool measures all five barriers (physical, cognitive, sensory, motivational, and environmental) to medication-taking at home. Therefore, utilizing a combination of tools would be most appropriate to measure these different aspects comprehensively. Further research is needed to develop a new comprehensive tool that simultaneously measures various barriers to medication self-management.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.071
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.218
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.373

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0710.218
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.011
Bibliometrics0.0420.034
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0080.008
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0050.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.161
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC GeriatricsSame topicMedication Adherence and ComplianceFrench-language works237,207