Assessing the feasibility of pillbox organizers for medication adherence among Egyptian adults with chronic diseases: a preliminary study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Patients with chronic diseases often have difficulties in managing multiple medications, resulting in poor adherence and, subsequently, adverse health consequences. Extensive research has demonstrated the beneficial effects of medication management devices, such as pill box organizers (PBOs) on enhancing medications adherence and improving patients’ health outcomes. However, research on PBOs in Egypt is limited. This study seeks to assess the awareness, user satisfaction of PBOs and their influence on medication adherence among Egyptian people with chronic illnesses. Methods Fifty -six Egyptian adults participated in a prospective observational study. Participants were recruited from two locations: a university employee and community individuals. Participants were asked to use a pillbox organizer for three months. Demographic data were gathered at baseline. During a bi-weekly interviews, we calculated missing doses for the past two weeks. At the end of the study period, a questionnaire containing yes/no questions to assess patients' awareness and PBO feasibility was conducted. The acceptability, usability, medication management support, and satisfaction of patients with the device were evaluated using a Likert scale. Results Sixty-one percent of the participants were aged 50 years or older. Almost 66% individuals possessed no prior awareness of pillbox organizers (95% CI: 0.54, 0.78, p = 0.0162). Nearly 90% deemed PBO beneficial for drug adherence (95% CI: 0.95, 1.02, p = 0). Most of the participants (80%) believed the PBO user-friendly, while 89% indicated that the device assisted in reminding them to adhere to their prescription regimen. The mean satisfaction score was 4.02 (± 0.25) on a 5-point Likert scale. Ninety-one percent of interviewees indicated that they would acquire a PBO if required. Conclusion The study participants viewed the PBO as an acceptable and useful tool for managing multiple medications, despite their limited awareness of them. The higher satisfaction and perceived usefulness indicate the feasibility for using PBOs in the Egyptian healthcare environments as well as its impact in enhancing drug adherence. Future research could focus on evaluating long-term adherence and health outcomes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".