Patients’ Beliefs about Their Heart Failure Medications: A Cross-Sectional Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire (BMQ) is a validated tool that has been correlated with medication adherence. Objectives: To determine patients’ beliefs about their heart failure (HF) medications and their self-reported adherence. Methods: In this prospective cross-sectional survey of community- dwelling adult patients with any type of HF, beliefs were assessed using the BMQ. Self-reported adherence was assessed using the 5-item Medication Adherence Report Scale (MARS-5). Data were collected between January and May 2024. The primary outcome was the BMQ necessity–concerns differential (NCD). Results: Thirty-five patients completed the survey. The mean age was 63.9 years, and 22 (63%) of the patients were women. Thirteen patients (37%) self-reported having HF with reduced ejection fraction. The mean NCD was 7.8 (range –20 to +20). The mean BMQ subscale scores were as follows: general-harm, 8.8 out of 25; general-overuse, 8.1 out of 15; specific-necessity, 20.7 out of 25; and specific-concerns, 12.9 out of 25. The mean MARS-5 score was 22.3 out of 25. Conclusions: The positive value for mean NCD indicated that patients’ beliefs about the necessity of their HF medications exceeded their concerns. Self-reported adherence was high. Keywords: heart failure, drug therapy, medication adherence RÉSUMÉ Contexte : Le Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire (BMQ) [questionnaire sur les croyances à propos des médicaments] est un outil validé corrélé à l’observance thérapeutique. Objectifs : Déterminer les croyances des patients au sujet de leurs médicaments pour l’insuffisance cardiaque (IC) et l’observance signalée par le patient. Méthodologie : Dans cette étude transversale prospective menée auprès de patients adultes vivant à domicile et souffrant de tout type d’IC, l’évaluation des croyances s’est faite à l’aide du BMQ. L’observance signalée par le patient a été évaluée à l’aide de la Medication Adherence Report Scale (MARS-5) [l’échelle à 5 points de rapport d’observance thérapeutique]. Les données ont été recueillies entre janvier et mai 2024. Le résultat principal de l’étude était le différentiel nécessité-préoccupation (DNP) du BMQ. Résultats : Trente-cinq patients ont répondu au sondage. L’âge moyen était de 63,9 ans, et 22 personnes (63 %) étaient des femmes. Treize patients (37 %) ont déclaré avoir une IC avec fraction d’éjection réduite. Le score moyen du DNP était de 7,8 (plage de -20 à +20). Les scores moyens des sous-échelles du BMQ étaient les suivants : dangerosité-générale : 8,8 sur 25; surutilisation générale : 8,1 sur 15; nécessité spécifique : 20,7 sur 25; et préoccupations spécifiques : 12,9 sur 25. Le score moyen de l’échelle MARS-5 était de 22,3 sur 25. Conclusions : La valeur positive du DNP moyen indique que les croyances des patients concernant la nécessité de prendre leurs médicaments pour l’IC dépassaient leurs préoccupations. L’observance signalée par le patient était élevée. Mots-clés : insuffisance cardiaque, thérapie médicamenteuse, observance thérapeutique
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".