Phenotyping Adherence Through Technology-Enabled Reports and Navigation (the PATTERN Study): Qualitative Study for Intervention Adaptation Using the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment Framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Older adults with multiple chronic conditions (MCC) and polypharmacy often face challenges with medication adherence. Nonadherence can lead to suboptimal treatment outcomes, adverse drug events, and poor quality of life. OBJECTIVE: To facilitate medication adherence among older adults with MCC and polypharmacy in primary care, we are adapting a technology-enabled intervention previously implemented in a specialty clinic. The objective of this study was to obtain multilevel feedback to inform the adaptation of the proposed intervention (Phenotyping Adherence Through Technology-Enabled Reports and Navigation [PATTERN]). METHODS: We conducted a formative qualitative study among patients, clinicians, and clinic administrators affiliated with a large academic health center in Chicago, Illinois. Patient eligibility included being aged 65 years or older, living with MCC, and contending with polypharmacy. Eligibility criteria for clinicians and administrators included being employed by any primary care clinic affiliated with the participating health center. Individual semistructured interviews were conducted remotely by a trained member of the study team using interview guides informed by the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment Framework. Thematic analysis of interview audio recordings drew from the Rapid Identification of Themes from Audio Recordings procedures. RESULTS: In total, we conducted 25 interviews, including 12 with clinicians and administrators, and 13 with patients. Thematic analysis revealed participants largely found the idea of technology-based medication adherence monitoring to be acceptable and appropriate for the target population in primary care, although several concerns were raised; we discuss these in detail. CONCLUSIONS: Our medication adherence monitoring intervention, adapted from specialty care, will be implemented in primary care. Formative interviews, informed by the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment Framework and conducted among patients, clinicians, and administrators, have identified intervention adaptation needs. Results from this study could inform other interventions using the patient portal with older adults.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".