Adherence to pharmacological treatment of non-malignant chronic pain: The role of illness perceptions and medication beliefs
Abstract
The objective was to identify the degree to which illness perceptions and medication beliefs explain variations in reported adherence to medication prescribed for the treatment of non-malignant chronic pain and to test the applicability of an extended version of the self-regulatory model to the chronic pain population. A cross-sectional design included 217 clinic patients completing validated questionnaires assessing their illness perceptions, medication beliefs and reported adherence to medication. Perceptions of illness (pain) as chronic, uncontrollable and unremitting were associated with greater adherence, fewer medication concerns and a belief that treatment was necessary. Structural equation modelling supports an extended SRM for chronic pain. It suggests that patients holding perceptions of serious consequences of pain and high emotion levels have more concerns about medication and are less adherent. Perceptions of serious illness consequences are also associated with stronger beliefs about the necessity of medicines and greater adherence. Beliefs about illness and medication are associated with adherence to treatment in chronic pain and this can be explained by an extended SRM. Results are preliminary and require replication. Further studies should explore the role that emotion has on coping strategies in chronic pain. Interventions should focus on altering unhelpful beliefs that reduce adherence.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Data collected via self-report limits confidence in reliability of results due to social desirability bias.
“The data was collected via self‐report, which limits confidence in the reliability of the results, as it raises issues of social desirability bias (Arnold & Feldman, 1981; Nicklas et al., 2010).”
From Effectiveness of cognitive analytic therapy for bipolar affective disorder: A co‐produced single subject cumulative treatment design with extended follow‐up (A <sup>1</sup> /B/A <sup>2</sup> /C‐FU) (2022) · cites this paper as Nicklas et al., 2010
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 37 · Cited by 78
- Authors
- Nicklas, L. B., Dunbar, M., & Wild, M.
- Affiliations
- Astley Ainslie Hospital (GB)
- Stobhill Hospital (GB)
- Beatson West of Scotland Cancer Centre (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Nicklas, Leeanne B.
- Venue
- Psychology & Health
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2010-06
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 601-615
- ISSN
- 0887-0446 (ISSN-L)
- 1476-8321
- OpenAlex
- W2075341151
- Cited by
- 78
- References
- 37
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 6
- FWCI
- 2.42
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Psychology and Health (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde
- University of Glasgow
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Medication Adherence and Compliance
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Opioid Use Disorder Treatment
- Keywords
- medication adherence, illness perception, medication beliefs, self-regulatory model, emotions, medication concerns, necessity beliefs
- MeSH terms
- Attitude to Health, Chronic Disease, Cross-Sectional Studies, Culture, Drug Therapy, Female, Humans, Male, Models, Psychological, Pain, Patient Compliance, Severity of Illness Index
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
