CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 630Medication Adherence and ComplianceBehavioral Health and InterventionsPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 78 of the 78 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Patient adherence to medical treatment: a review of reviews

Open access
van Dulmen, Sandra, Sluijs, Emmy, van Dijk, Liset, de Ridder, Denise, Heerdink, Rob, Bensing, Jozien·2007·BMC Health Services Research
DOI 10.1186/1472-6963-7-55PMC PMC1955829
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Background: Patients' non-adherence to medical treatment remains a persistent problem. Many interventions to improve patient adherence are unsuccessful and sound theoretical foundations are lacking. Innovations in theory and practice are badly needed. A new and promising way could be to review the existing reviews of adherence to interventions and identify the underlying theories for effective interventions. That is the aim of our study. Methods: The study is a review of 38 systematic reviews of the effectiveness of adherence interventions published between 1990 and 2005. Electronic literature searches were conducted in Medline, Psychinfo, Embase and the Cochrane Library. Explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied. The scope of the study is patient adherence to medical treatment in the cure and care sector. Results: Significant differences in the effectiveness of adherence interventions were found in 23 of the 38 systematic reviews. Effective interventions were found in each of four theoretical approaches to adherence interventions: technical, behavioural, educational and multi-faceted or complex interventions. Technical solutions, such as a simplification of the regimen, were often found to be effective, although that does not count for every therapeutic regimen. Overall, our results show that, firstly, there are effective adherence interventions without an explicit theoretical explanation of the operating mechanisms, for example technical solutions. Secondly, there are effective adherence interventions, which clearly stem from the behavioural theories, for example incentives and reminders. Thirdly, there are other theoretical models that seem plausible for explaining non-adherence, but not very effective in improving adherence behaviour. Fourthly, effective components within promising theories could not be identified because of the complexity of many adherence interventions and the lack of studies that explicitly compare theoretical components. Conclusion: There is a scarcity of comparative studies explicitly contrasting theoretical models or their components. The relative weight of these theories and the effective components in the interventions designed to improve adherence, need to be assessed in future studies.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1472-6963-7-55

Cites

78 of 78 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 77 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Haynes R, Yao X, Degani A, Kripalani S, Garg A, McDonald H: Interventions to enhance medication adherence. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005, 1-96.
  2. Kaptein A, Weinman J: Health Psychology. 2004, Malden: BPS Blackwell

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 501–600 of 630

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
van Dulmen, S., Sluijs, E., van Dijk, L., de Ridder, D., Heerdink, R., & Bensing, J.
Affiliations
Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research (NL)
Venue
BMC Health Services Research
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2007-04-17
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
55-55
ISSN
1472-6963 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/1472-6963-7-55
PMC
PMC1955829
OpenAlex
W2000801086
Cited by
627
References
77
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 43 · 2017: 41 · 2016: 43 · 2015: 75 · 2014: 48 · 2013: 51 · 2012: 27
FWCI
3.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • BMC Health Services Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
ZonMw
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Medication Adherence and Compliance
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Keywords
medication adherence, treatment adherence interventions, behavioral theory, educational intervention, technical solutions, regimen simplification, incentives, reminders, complex interventions
MeSH terms
Humans, Patient Compliance, Patient Education as Topic, Severity of Illness Index, Social Support, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Reminder Systems

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