MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract 9578: Single-Item Self-Report Medication Adherence Question Predicts Hospitalization and Death in Patients with Heart Failure

2011· article· en· W4395040757 on OpenAlexaff
Jia‐Rong Wu, Darren A. DeWalt, David W. Baker, Dean Schillinger, Bernice Ruo, Kirsten Bibbins‐Domingo, Aurelia Macabasco‐O’Connell, George M. Holmes, Kimberly A. Broucksou, Brian Erman, Victoria Hawk, Crystal W. Cené, Christine D. Jones, Michael Pignone

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedication Adherence and Compliance
Canadian institutionsKimberly-Clark (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHeart failureInternal medicineMedication adherenceCardiologyGerontologyEmergency medicineIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Sub-optimal adherence to heart failure (HF) medications contributes to worse outcomes. Having a simple means of identifying sub-optimal adherence could help identify at-risk patients for interventions. Objective: To determine whether a single-item self-report medication adherence question predicts hospitalization and death in patients with HF. Methods: We performed an observational study in 597 patients with HF (male 52%, age 61±13 years, NYHA III/IV 31%) within a 4-site randomized trial. Patient demographic and clinical variables were collected at baseline by interview and medical record review. Self-report medication adherence was assessed at baseline using a single item question: “Over the past 7 days, how many times did you miss a dose of any of your heart medication?” Patients who reported no missing dose were defined as adherent; those missing ≥ 1 dose were non-adherent. The primary outcome was combined all-cause hospitalization or death over 1 year; secondary endpoint was HF hospitalization. Outcomes were assessed based on blinded chart reviews and HF outcomes were determined by a blinded adjudication committee. We used negative binomial regression to examine the relationship between medication adherence and incidence of hospitalization and death, adjusting for site, demographic (age, gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status) and clinical (HF symptoms, systolic dysfunction, β-blocker use, hypertension, and history of CVD) factors. Results: Seventy-three percent of patients reported perfect adherence to their heart medicine at baseline. Patients with perfect medication adherence had a lower rate of events (0.71 events / year) compared with those with any non-adherence (0.90 event / year). After adjusting for site, adherent patients had an incidence rate ratio (IRR) of 0.79 (95% CI: 0.67-0.92) for all-cause hospitalization or death, and 0.79 (95% CI: 0.75-0.83) for HF hospitalization. When adding demographic and clinical factors to the model, the adjusted IRR for all-cause hospitalization and death = 0.77 (95% CI: 0.68-0.86) and for HF hospitalization = 0.83 (95% CI: 0.65-1.06). Conclusion: A single question on medication adherence at baseline predicts hospitalization and death over 1 year in patients with HF.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculationSame topicMedication Adherence and ComplianceFrench-language works237,207