Cited by 99Medication Adherence and ComplianceCancer survivorship and careBreast Cancer Treatment Studies

Factors associated with intentional and unintentional non-adherence to adjuvant endocrine therapy following breast cancer

Open access
Brett, J., Fenlon, D., Boulton, M., Hulbert-Williams, N.J., Walter, F.M., Donnelly, P., Lavery, B., Morgan, A. +2 more·2018·European Journal of Cancer Care

Abstract

Adherence to adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) following breast cancer is known to be suboptimal despite its known efficacy in reducing recurrence and mortality. This study aims to investigate factors associated with non-adherence and inform the development of interventions to support women and promote adherence. A questionnaire survey to measure level of adherence, side effects experienced, beliefs about medicine, support received and socio-demographic details was sent to 292 women 2-4 years post breast cancer diagnosis. Differences between non-adherers and adherers to AET were explored, and factors associated with intentional and unintentional non-adherence are reported. Approximately one quarter of respondents, 46 (22%), were non-adherers, comprising 29 (14%) intentional non-adherers and 17 (8%) unintentional non-adherers. Factors significantly associated with intentional non-adherence were the presence of side effects (p < .03), greater concerns about AET (p < .001) and a lower perceived necessity to take AET (p < .001). Half of the sample (105/211) reported that side effects had a moderate or high impact on their quality of life. Factors associated with unintentional non-adherence were younger age (<65) (p < .001), post-secondary education (p = .046) and paid employment (p = .031). There are distinct differences between intentional non-adherence and unintentional non-adherence. Differentiation between the two types of non-adherence may help tailor support and advice interventions.

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 · 10.1111/ecc.12601

Cites

53 of 53 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

1 of the 54 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Ingersoll K.S., Cohen J. (2008) The impact of medication regimen factors on adherence to chronic treatment: a review of literature. J Behav Med. 31(3), 213-224
  2. McCowan C., Wang S., Thompson A., Makubate B., Petrie D. (2013) The value of high adherence to tamoxifen in women with breast cancer: A community-based cohort study. British Journal of Cancer 109, 1172-1180
  3. Brett, J., Fenlon, D., Boulton, M., Hulbert-Williams, N. J., Walter, F. M., Donnelly, P., Lavery, B., Morgan, A., Morris, C. & Watson, E. (2018). Factors associated with intentional and unintentional non-adherence to adjuvant endocrine therapy following breast cancer. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER CARE, 27 (1), https://doi.org/10.1111/ecc.12601. Persistent Link: http://hdl.handle.net/11343/292177

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Brett, J., Fenlon, D., Boulton, M., Hulbert-Williams, N. J., Walter, F. M., Donnelly, P., Lavery, B., Morgan, A., Morris, C., & Watson, E.
Affiliations
  • Oxford Brookes University (GB)
  • University of Southampton (GB)
  • University of Chester (GB)
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • Torbay Hospital (GB)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • Independent Cancer Patient Voice; London UK
Corresponding author
Brett, J.
Venue
European Journal of Cancer Care
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-11-30
Volume
27
Issue
1
Pages
e12601
ISSN
0961-5423 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2537847296
Cited by
98
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 3
FWCI
9.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • European Journal of Cancer Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (submittedVersion)
  • ChesterRep (University of Chester) (submittedVersion)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion)
  • Edge Hill University Research Information Repository (Edge Hill University) (submittedVersion)
  • Radar (Oxford Brookes University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Medication Adherence and Compliance
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Breast Cancer Treatment Studies
Keywords
adjuvant endocrine therapy, breast cancer, medication adherence, intentional non-adherence, unintentional non-adherence, treatment side effects, quality of life, sociodemographic factors, patient support interventions
MeSH terms
Assessment of Medication Adherence, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Androstadienes, Breast Neoplasms, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Logistic Models, Drug Monitoring, Chemotherapy, Adjuvant, Antineoplastic Agents, Hormonal, Aromatase Inhibitors, Medication Adherence

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