CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 150Ethics and bioethics in healthcarePatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareMedication Adherence and Compliance

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 38 of the 38 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Adherence, shared decision-making and patient autonomy

Sandman, Lars, Granger, Bradi B., Ekman, Inger, Munthe, Christian·2012·Medicine Health Care and Philosophy
DOI 10.1007/s11019-011-9336-x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In recent years the formerly quite strong interest in patient compliance has been questioned for being too paternalistic and oriented towards overly narrow biomedical goals as the basis for treatment recommendations. In line with this there has been a shift towards using the notion of adherence to signal an increased weight for patients' preferences and autonomy in decision making around treatments. This 'adherence-paradigm' thus encompasses shared decision-making as an ideal and patient perspective and autonomy as guiding goals of care. What this implies in terms of the importance that we have reason to attach to (non-)adherence and how has, however, not been explained. In this article, we explore the relationship between different forms of shared decision-making, patient autonomy and adherence. Distinguishing between dynamically and statically framed adherence we show how the version of shared decision-making advocated will have consequences for whether one should be interested in a dynamically or statically framed adherence and in what way patient adherence should be assessed. In contrast to the former compliance paradigm (where non-compliance was necessarily seen as a problem), using observations about (non-)adherence to assess the success of health care decision making and professional-patient interaction turns out to be a much less straightforward matter.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11019-011-9336-x

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 150

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Sandman, L., Granger, B. B., Ekman, I., & Munthe, C.
Affiliations
  • University of Borås (SE)
  • Duke Medical Center (US)
  • University of Gothenburg (SE)
Corresponding author
Sandman, Lars
ORCID
Venue
Medicine Health Care and Philosophy
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2011-06-17
Volume
15
Issue
2
Pages
115-127
ISSN
  • 1386-7423 (ISSN-L)
  • 1572-8633
DOI
10.1007/s11019-011-9336-x
OpenAlex
W2064177412
Cited by
150
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 5
FWCI
6.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
Locations
  • Medicine Health Care and Philosophy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Borås Academic Digital Archive (University of Borås) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Medication Adherence and Compliance
Keywords
medication adherence, shared decision-making, patient autonomy, paternalism, patient preferences, professional-patient interaction
MeSH terms
Choice Behavior, Decision Making, Humans, Patient Compliance, Patient Participation, Personal Autonomy, Patient Preference

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review