Cited by 385Chronic Disease Management StrategiesMedication Adherence and CompliancePharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes

Burden of treatment for chronic illness: a concept analysis and review of the literature

Open access
Sav, Adem, King, Michelle A., Whitty, Jennifer A., Kendall, Elizabeth, McMillan, Sara S., Kelly, Fiona, Hunter, Beth, Wheeler, Amanda J.·2015·Health Expectations

Abstract

Context: Treatment burden, the burden associated with the treatment and management of chronic illness, has not yet been well articulated. Objective: Using Rodgers' (1989, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 14, 330–335) method of concept analysis, this review describes the ways in which treatment burden has been conceptualized to define the concept and to develop a framework for understanding its attributes, antecedents and consequences. Methods: Leading databases were searched electronically between the years 2002 and 2011. To ensure the review focused on actual observations of the concept of interest, articles that did not measure treatment burden (either qualitatively or quantitatively) were excluded. An inductive approach was used to identify themes related to the concept of treatment burden. Main results: Thirty articles, identified from 1557 abstracts, were included in the review. The attributes of treatment burden include burden as a dynamic process, as a multidimensional concept, and comprising of both subjective and objective elements. Prominent predisposing factors (antecedents) include the person's age and gender, their family circumstances, possible comorbidity, high use of medications, characteristics of treatment and their relationship with their health‐care provider. The most dominant consequences are poor health and well‐being, non‐adherence to treatment, ineffective resource use and burden on significant others. Furthermore, many of these consequences can also become antecedents, reflecting the cyclic and dynamic nature of treatment burden. Conclusion: The findings underscore the need for researchers and health‐care professionals to engage in collaborative discussions and make cooperative efforts to help alleviate treatment burden and tailor treatment regimens to the realities of people's daily lives.

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/hex.12046

Cites

52 of 52 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?

  • There is now a discrete body of primary research literature and systematic reviews that utilises theoretical perspectives on NPT to understand patient and caregiver experience.

    “there is now a discrete body of primary research literature (e.g. [216–220]) and systematic reviews (e.g. [221–223]) that utilises these theoretical perspectives to understand patient and caregiver experience.”

    From Using Normalization Process Theory in feasibility studies and process evaluations of complex healthcare interventions: a systematic review (2018) · cites this paper as [222]

    The Data sources and search strategy and Family and carers sections show that this is a review addressing patient and caregiver treatment burden. But the Methods section says the review uses Rodgers’ method of concept analysis, not NPT; the References section cites an NPT-based primary study. The paper therefore fits the claim as a review of patient and caregiver experience, but not as a review that itself utilises NPT. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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 53 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sav, A., King, M. A., Whitty, J. A., Kendall, E., McMillan, S. S., Kelly, F., Hunter, B., & Wheeler, A. J.
Affiliations
Griffith University (AU)
Corresponding author
Sav, Adem
Venue
Health Expectations
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-01-31
Volume
18
Issue
3
Pages
312-324
ISSN
  • 1369-6513 (ISSN-L)
  • 1369-7625
OpenAlex
W2122615311
Cited by
385
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 37 · 2025: 40 · 2024: 44 · 2023: 38 · 2022: 41 · 2021: 42 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 28 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 1
FWCI
1.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Health Expectations (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • QUT ePrints (Queensland University of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • UEA Digital Repository (University of East Anglia) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Bank (Australian Catholic University) (submittedVersion)
  • Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Queensland Health
  • Australian Government
  • Pharmacy Guild of Australia
  • Griffith University
  • Queensland Government
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Chronic Disease Management Strategies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Medication Adherence and Compliance
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Pharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Keywords
treatment burden, chronic disease, conceptual analysis, medication adherence, medication use, comorbidities, family burden, patient well-being, resource utilization (health care)
MeSH terms
Chronic Disease, Humans, Models, Theoretical, Cost of Illness

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