The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Can Treatment Adherence Be Improved by Using Rubin's Four Tendencies Framework to Understand a Patient's Response to Expectations
Open accessAbstract
Within the context of poorer patient outcomes and rising healthcare costs, we need to better understand why many patients do not engage fully with their treatment plan. Movement away from talking about “compliance” towards “adherence” and “concordance” is evidence of a recognition that this is a two-way process. Whilst healthcare professionals expect patients to engage in treatment, equally, patients have expectations (whether positive or negative) of their treatment and their need for engagement. There is a need for an effective method that can specifically target those interventions that will provide the most benefit to individual patients and which, crucially, is easy and inexpensive to administer in everyday practice and widely applicable. Rubin's Four Tendencies model identifies a patient's “response to outer and inner expectations” as a key factor in adherence. The model therefore provides an opportunity to test such a targeted, patient-specific strategy and we present a call to action for research in this area.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary?
Jadad, A. R., Moore, R. A., Carroll, D., Jenkinson, C., Reynolds, D. J. M., Gavaghan, D. J., & McQuay, H. J. (1996) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(95)00134-4 · Cited by 17,582
Efficacy of the Theory of Planned Behaviour: A meta‐analytic review
Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001) · British Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1348/014466601164939 · Cited by 9,970
Stages and processes of self-change of smoking: Toward an integrative model of change.
Prochaska, J. O., & DiClemente, C. C. (1983) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-006x.51.3.390 · Cited by 9,098
In search of how people change: Applications to addictive behaviors.
Prochaska, J. O., DiClemente, C. C., & Norcross, J. C. (1992) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.47.9.1102 · Cited by 8,596
The Health Belief Model: a decade later.
Janz, N. K., & Becker, M. H. (1984) · Health Education Quarterly · doi:10.1177/109019818401100101 · Cited by 8,437
Osterberg, L., & Blaschke, T. (2005) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmra050100 · Cited by 7,974
Schulz (1995) · doi:10.1001/jama.1995.03520290060030 · Cited by 5,634
Social Learning Theory and the Health Belief Model
Rosenstock, I. M., Strecher, V. J., & Becker, M. H. (1988) · Health Education Quarterly · doi:10.1177/109019818801500203 · Cited by 5,564
Moher, D., Pham, B., Jones, A., Cook, D. J., Jadad, A. R., Moher, M., Tugwell, P., & Klassen, T. P. (1998) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(98)01085-x · Cited by 3,560
Making psychological theory useful for implementing evidence based practice: a consensus approach
Michie, S. (2005) · Quality and Safety in Health Care · doi:10.1136/qshc.2004.011155 · Cited by 3,440
Research works printed but not linked: 8
- 10.2147/RMHP.S19801 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1159/000350251 · DOI
- 10.3810/pgm.2000.03.940 · DOI
- 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2002.11214.x · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1186/s40248-016-0078-8 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jad.2017.05.018 · DOI
- 10.1155/2017/7589184 · DOI
- 10.1186/1471-2458-7-104 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
2016 European Guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice
Piepoli, M. F., Hoes, A. W., Agewall, S., Albus, C., Brotons, C., Catapano, A. L., Cooney, M.-T., Corrà, U., Cosyns, B., Deaton, C., et al. (2016) · European Heart Journal · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehw106 · Cited by 6,457
SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials
Chan, A.-W., Tetzlaff, J. M., Gotzsche, P. C., Altman, D. G., Mann, H., Berlin, J. A., Dickersin, K., Hrobjartsson, A., Schulz, K. F., Parulekar, W. R., et al. (2013) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.e7586 · Cited by 6,251
Literacy and health outcomes: A systematic review of the literature
DeWalt, D. A., Berkman, N. D., Sheridan, S., Lohr, K. N., & Pignone, M. P. (2004) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1111/j.1525-1497.2004.40153.x · Cited by 2,309
A new taxonomy for describing and defining adherence to medications
Vrijens, B., De Geest, S., Hughes, D. A., Przemyslaw, K., Demonceau, J., Ruppar, T., Dobbels, F., Fargher, E., Morrison, V., Lewek, P., et al. (2012) · British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2125.2012.04167.x · Cited by 2,028
Toward a theory of motivational interviewing
Miller, W. R., & Rose, G. S. (2009) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/a0016830 · Cited by 1,603
Metadata
- Authors
- Kirk, J., MacDonald, A., Lavender, P., Dean, J., & Rubin, G.
- Venue
- Biomedicine Hub
- Publisher
- S. Karger AG
- Published
- 2017-08-29
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 1-12
- ISSN
- 2296-6870 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2746562707
- Cited by
- 3,887
- References
- 29
- FWCI
- 349.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- Licence
- creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (vor)
- creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (tdm)
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: Can Treatment Adherence Be Improved by Using Rubin's Four Tendencies Framework to Understand a Patient's Response to Expectations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1159/000480347
- The paper
- Kirk, J., MacDonald, A., Lavender, P., Dean, J., & Rubin, G. (2017). Can Treatment Adherence Be Improved by Using Rubin's Four Tendencies Framework to Understand a Patient's Response to Expectations. Biomedicine Hub. https://doi.org/10.1159/000480347
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.
