A Multi-Factorial Intervention to Increase Adherence to Mandibular Advancement Devices for Obstructive Sleep Apnea: A Randomized Control Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: The prevalence of sleep apnea is estimated at approximately 26% and 13% of adult males and females, respectively.That estimated number of adults with sleep apnea is similar to those for diabetes or asthma.Long-term adherence to treatment for chronic conditions in developed countries is estimated at 50%.The air of this study was to test whether a multifactorial intervention increases adherence rates in patients using a titratable oral appliance to treat OSA.Methods: Subjects are between the ages of 18-60+, and have a diagnosis of OSA.After informed consent, subjects are randomly assigned to experimental or control groups.A power analysis indicated group size of 30 subjects each to demonstrate a difference (p<0.05) of +/-15% between groups with a power of 0.86.The control group receives routine care in addition to objective monitoring with a thermal sensor (DentiTrac®, BRAEBON, Ontario, Canada).This care includes an initial 1-hr consult, then delivery of the oral appliance (with sensor) and follow-up appointments at 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months.Experimental subjects receive in addition: educational material at scheduled intervals, Spouse/partner packet, monthly follow up communication, communication with primary physician and dentist about patients, print outs of sensor data, and gift cards for timely follow up with sleep physician.Comparison of adherence is at 1-, 3-, and 6 month time points.Variables looked for the groups are mean nights iii worn (N > 0), mean nights adherent to prescribed wear time (N > 4), and mean hours worn per night (H/N).Results: Enrollment to date has yielded 90 patients; 39 female and 51 male.A total of 53 have been recorded at 30 days (TP1), of those, 41 have been recorded at 90 days (TP2), and of those 46, 32 have been recorded at 180 days (TP3).Out of the 90 enrolled, 37 patients dropped out for multiple reasons (sensor malfunction -patients continuing to use appliance in the absence of objective monitoring, lost to follow up appointments, patients seeking treatment elsewhere because the clinician was out of network, patient discontinuing use of appliance or using appliance in conjunction with CPAP).There were no significant between group differences for age, sex or BMI (p>0.05)At 30 days postdelivery (TP1), subjects in the experimental group used their oral appliance for more nights (1.5 more nights, p=0.005) and for more nights > 4hrs night (3.3 more nights, p<0.000), than those in the control group.The subjects in the experimental group wore their appliances 5.9 hr nightly vs. 5.2 hr nightly in the control group (p=.258).Conclusions: Data are preliminary as we continue to enroll subjects.Interventions were well received by subjects, and most can be carried out by auxiliary personnel.The experimental interventions resulted in statistically significant improvements in patient adherence to treatment based on the proportion of nights with > 0 hours wear and > 4 hours wear.It remains to be seen if the experimental intervention results in increased adherence compared with standard care over a longer time period.iv Dedication This document is dedicated to my family, friends, and professors.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".