Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 353

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 20 of the 20 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

How often do patients with psychosis fail to adhere to treatment programmes? A systematic review

NOSÉ, M., BARBUI, C., TANSELLA, M.·2003·Psychological Medicine

Abstract

Background. Studies that assess the rates of psychotic patients who fail to adhere to treatment programmes have generated heterogeneous results, with estimates ranging from 24 to 90%. This paper presents findings from a systematic review on adherence to treatment by patients with psychosis. Its purpose is to provide an overall estimate of treatment non-adherence in community psychiatric services, and to analyse and study patient characteristics explaining the between-study heterogeneity in rates of non-adherence. Method. A systematic review of published studies that report rates of non-adherence with medication and scheduled appointments by psychotic patients in community settings has been undertaken. Results. A total of 103 studies were included in this systematic review. Eighty-six of these studies were suitable for data re-analysis. The overall weighted mean rate of non-adherence, calculated in a sample of 23796 patients, was 25·78%. A linear regression analysis of non-adherence rates on background characteristics showed that sample size was negatively associated with non-adherence rates, while first-contact cases and low-adherence cases, in comparison with ongoing cases, were associated with higher non-adherence rates. Factors associated with poor compliance included: lack of insight; positive symptoms; younger age; male gender; history of substance abuse; unemployment; and low social functioning. Conclusions. Approximately one in four patients with psychosis fails to adhere with treatment programmes. Preventive evidence-based clinical interventions should be routinely implemented in community settings to reduce patient non-adherence.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0033291703008328

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 20 references

Cited by

See all 353

Metadata

Authors
NOSÉ, M., BARBUI, C., & TANSELLA, M.
Venue
Psychological Medicine
Published
2003-09-25
Volume
33
Issue
7
Pages
1149-1160
ISSN
  • 0033-2917 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8978
OpenAlex
W2040867604
Cited by
353
References
20
FWCI
8.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: How often do patients with psychosis fail to adhere to treatment programmes? A systematic review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/s0033291703008328
The paper
NOSÉ, M., BARBUI, C., & TANSELLA, M. (2003). How often do patients with psychosis fail to adhere to treatment programmes? A systematic review. Psychological Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0033291703008328

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.