zirk.us is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
Literature, philosophy, film, music, culture, politics, history, architecture: join the circus of the arts and humanities! For readers, writers, academics or anyone wanting to follow the conversation.

Administered by:

Server stats:

759
active users

#metaphilosophy

0 posts0 participants0 posts today

Pills often feature in thought experiments to eliminate the difficulty of one of the response options. Example: It's hard to [X] in reality, but suppose you could [X] by taking a pill. Would you take the pill?

I got curious about whether people find it so easy to take pills. Apparently not.

In this meta-analysis, #medication non-adeherence was more than 40%: doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-0

BMJ Open · Prevalence and predictors of medication non-adherence among people living with multimorbidity: a systematic review and meta-analysisObjectives This systematic review aimed to describe medication non-adherence among people living with multimorbidity according to the current literature, and synthesise predictors of non-adherence in this population. Methods A systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses. PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO were searched for relevant articles published in English language between January 2009 and April 2019. Quantitative studies reporting medication non-adherence and/or predictors of non-adherence among people with two or more chronic conditions were included in the review. A meta-analysis was conducted with a subgroup of studies that used an inclusive definition of multimorbidity to recruit participants, rather than seeking people with specific conditions. Remaining studies reporting prevalence and predictors of non-adherence were narratively synthesised. Results The database search produced 10 998 records and a further 75 were identified through other sources. Following full-text screening, 178 studies were included in the review. The range of reported non-adherence differed by measurement method, at 76.5% for self-report, 69.4% for pharmacy data, and 44.1% for electronic monitoring. A meta-analysis was conducted with eight studies ( n =8949) that used an inclusive definition of multimorbidity to recruit participants. The pooled prevalence of non-adherence was 42.6% (95% CI: 34.0 - 51.3%, k =8, I 2=97%, p <0.01). The overall range of non-adherence was 7.0%–83.5%. Frequently reported correlates of non-adherence included previous non-adherence and treatment-related beliefs. Conclusions The review identified a heterogeneous literature in terms of conditions studied, and definitions and measures of non-adherence used. Results suggest that future attempts to improve adherence among people with multimorbidity should determine for which conditions individuals require most support. The variable levels of medication non-adherence highlight the need for more attention to be paid by healthcare providers to the impact of multimorbidity on chronic disease self-management. PROSPERO registration number CRD42019133849. Data are available in a public, open access repository. All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information. All data relevant to the study are included in the article, uploaded as supplementary information or deposited on Open Science Framework: <https://osf.io/nym7v/>. Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero “No rights reserved” data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication). Our systematic review produced a large amount of information and the arising database is available for future collaboration on additional analyses. Please contact the corresponding author with any inquiries.

More successful predictions of my #BoundedReflectivism & #EpistemicIdentity article from 2022?

From about 2017 or 2018, I reviewed evidence suggesting that reflective thinking often helps, but may even hinder our judgment depending on factors like whether we are reasoning based on shared identities and epistemic standards (doi.org/10.1111/meta.12534).

Years later Robb Willer et al. solicited ideas for debiasing political judgments. After years of testing 25 different interventions, their results are published in #Science: doi.org/10.1126/science.adh476

They found that biased evaluations of politicized facts were impacted by both
- REFLECTION (on potential misperceptions of undemocratic actions) and
- shared IDENTITY cues (which could help *or* hinder!)