Cited by 16Medication Adherence and ComplianceBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesEthics and bioethics in healthcare

Apparent treatment-resistant hypertension – patient–physician relationship and ethical issues

Open access
Mariampillai, Julian E., Eskås, Per Anders, Heimark, Sondre, Larstorp, Anne Cecilie K., Fadl Elmula, Fadl Elmula M., Høieggen, Aud, Nortvedt, Per·2017·Blood Pressure

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Poor drug adherence is a major cause of apparent treatment-resistant hypertension. As a consequence, several methods have been developed and attempted implemented in clinical practice to reveal non-adherence and to monitor drug adherence. There are, however, several hitherto unresolved ethical aspects regarding potential methods for drug monitoring in these patients. RESULTS: The most striking challenge is the balance between patient autonomy and the physician's desire for the patient to adhere to the prescribed therapy. Also, methods for monitoring must only be implemented in the treatment of well-informed and consenting patients. Major resources are used on non-adherent patients; how long the physician should encourage continuation of treatment is an important question. CONCLUSIONS: We believe that physicians should reflect and discuss these potential challenges, and that patient education, information and a solid patient-physician relationship are essential for achieving drug adherence. Methods for monitoring adherence represent, however, a useful and often necessary supplement.

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 · 10.1080/08037051.2016.1277129

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mariampillai, J. E., Eskås, P. A., Heimark, S., Larstorp, A. C. K., Fadl Elmula, F. E. M., Høieggen, A., & Nortvedt, P.
Affiliations
  • University of Oslo (NO)
  • Oslo University Hospital (NO)
  • Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway;
Corresponding author
Høieggen, Aud
Venue
Blood Pressure
Published
2017-01-12
Volume
26
Issue
3
Pages
133-138
ISSN
  • 0803-7051 (ISSN-L)
  • 1651-1999
OpenAlex
W2576518342
Cited by
16
References
24
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2
FWCI
2.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Blood Pressure (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Medication Adherence and Compliance
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Blood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
Keywords
treatment-resistant hypertension, medication adherence, medication non-adherence, physician-patient relationship, medical ethics, patient autonomy, informed consent, adherence monitoring, patient education
MeSH terms
Antihypertensive Agents, Blood Pressure, Drug Resistance, Humans, Hypertension, Informed Consent, Patient Compliance, Patient Participation, Patients, Physician-Patient Relations, Physicians, Drug Monitoring, Patient Medication Knowledge

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