MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W69997206 · doi:10.1001/jama.288.22.2880

Helping Patients Follow Prescribed Treatment

2002· article· en· W69997206 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedication Adherence and Compliance
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineReferralHealth carePillMedication adherenceFamily medicineNursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

MEDICAL RESEARCH DURing the past few decades has produced efficacious treatments for many health care disorders and, increasingly, these treatments can be selfadministered. Unfortunately, low adherence can undermine the effectiveness of care at many steps in the process. For example, 49% of patients who demonstrated elevated blood pressure on community screening failed to follow through with a referral for follow-up assessment. Of those who enter the medical care system, more than a third may drop out, especially during the first few months. While in care, the average consumption of medication has been found to be about 50%, with a very wide range from none to substantially more than 100%. Compliance with instructions to lose weight or stop smoking is substantially lower, with long-term success rates less than 10%. One of the important difficulties in managing low adherence is lack of accurate and affordable measures. Clinicians must frequently rely on their own judgment but unfortunately demonstrate no better than chance accuracy in predicting the adherence of their patients, even among patients for whom they feel confident about their predictions. A pragmatic approach to measuring adherence is presented in BOX 1. Based on a systematic review of studies adherence measures, asking nonresponders about their adherence will detect more than 50% of those with low adherence, with a specificity of 87%. Even when patients indicate that they have not taken all their medications as prescribed, their estimates usually substantially overestimate their actual adherence. Thus, the key validated question is “Have you missed any pills in the past week?” and any indication of having missed 1 or more pills signals a problem with low adherence. Overestimation of adherence by patients is difficult to study and is presently poorly documented. Reasons for overestimation could include difficulty recalling the details of medication taking, attempting to please practitioners or to avoid confrontation, or a combination of these factors. Other practical measures to assess adherence include watching for those who do not respond to increments in treatment intensity and patients who fail to attend appointments. More objective measures of compliance can also be of use when available. For example, drug levels in body fluids (blood, saliva, urine) can help in assessing patient compliance (eg, serum digoxin levels and levels of anti-

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.657
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.216 · 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