Cited by 725Medication Adherence and CompliancePharmacy and Medical PracticesMental Health Treatment and Access

Compliance With Medication Regimens for Mental and Physical Disorders

Cramer, Joyce A., Rosenheck, Robert·1998·Psychiatric Services

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The authors reviewed research on medication compliance in psychiatric treatment and compared compliance rates with compliance rates in treatment of physical disorders. METHODS: MEDLINE was used to locate reports in the literature on medication compliance in psychiatric treatment for the years 1975 through 1996. These reports and studies cited in the reports were reviewed to determine the methods used to assess compliance and the compliance rates reported. Ten reports describing assessment methods and including medication compliance rates for antidepressant medication and 24 reports for antipsychotic medication were selected. They were compared with 12 reports that used microelectronic monitoring to assess medication compliance of patients with a range of nonpsychiatric disorders. RESULTS: Studies of psychiatric patients used various methods of estimating medication compliance, including interviews with patients, clinicians' judgment, and pill counts, but overall showed low rates of compliance. Patients receiving antipsychotics took an average of 58 percent of the recommended amount of the medications, with a range from 24 to 90 percent. Patients receiving antidepressants took 65 percent of the recommended amount, with a range from 40 to 90 percent. The mean compliance rate for patients with physical disorders was 76 percent, with a range from 60 to 92 percent, although the microelectronic monitoring showed frequent omission of doses and discontinuation of medication. CONCLUSIONS: Compliance with medication regimens among patients with psychiatric disorders may be lower than among patients with physical disorders. However, the difference may be largely attributable to the methods used for estimating compliance. The findings suggest the need for new and improved methods for monitoring compliance and increasing patients' compliance with pharmacotherapy.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1176/ps.49.2.196

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cramer, J. A., & Rosenheck, R.
Affiliations
Yale University (US)
Venue
Psychiatric Services
Published
1998-02
Volume
49
Issue
2
Pages
196-201
ISSN
  • 0022-1597 (ISSN-L)
  • 1075-2730
  • 1557-9700
OpenAlex
W2162391751
Cited by
725
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 35 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 28 · 2015: 29 · 2014: 32 · 2013: 40 · 2012: 39
FWCI
3.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychiatric Services (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5r24mh054446-05)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R24-MH-54446)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Medication Adherence and Compliance
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmacy and Medical Practices
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
Keywords
medication adherence, mental illness, physical disorders, antipsychotic drugs, antidepressants, pill count, dose omission, pharmacotherapy
MeSH terms
Antidepressive Agents, Mental Disorders, Health Status, Humans, Patient Compliance, Time Factors, Antipsychotic Agents, Drug Monitoring

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