ArticleJAMIA open2025
Engaging end-users to develop a novel algorithm to process electronic medication adherence monitoring device data.
Article in JAMIA open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: To engage end-users to develop and evaluate an algorithm to convert electronic adherence monitoring device (EAMD) output into the adherence data required for analyses. Materials and Methods: This study included 4 phases. First, process mapping interviews and focus groups were conducted to identify rules for EAMD data processing and user needs. Second, algorithm parameters required to compute daily adherence values were defined and coded in an R package (OncMAP). Third, algorithm-produced data were compared to manually recoded data to evaluate the algorithm's sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy. Finally, pilot testing was conducted to obtain feedback on the perceived value/benefit of the algorithm and features that should be considered during software development. Results: EAMD data processing rules were identified and coded in an R application. The algorithm correctly classified all complete observations with 100% sensitivity and specificity. The receiver operating characteristic curve analysis yielded an area under the curve of 1.00. All pilot testing participants expressed interest in using the algorithm (Net Promoter Score = 71%) but identified several features essential for inclusion in the software package to ensure widespread adoption. Discussion: The decision rules implemented to process EAMD actuation data can be parameterized to develop an algorithm to automate this process. The algorithm demonstrated high sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy. End-users were enthusiastic about the product and provided insights to inform the development of a software package including the algorithm. Conclusion: A rule-based algorithm can accurately process EAMD actuation data and has the potential to improve the rigor and pace of adherence science.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.