Living With, Managing and Minimising Treatment Burden in Long Term Conditions: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Research
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: 'Treatment burden', defined as both the workload and impact of treatment regimens on function and well-being, has been associated with poor adherence and unfavourable outcomes. Previous research focused on treatment workload but our understanding of treatment impact is limited. This research aimed to systematically review qualitative research to identify: 1) what are the treatment generated disruptions experienced by patients across all chronic conditions and treatments? 2) what strategies do patients employ to minimise these treatment generated disruptions? METHODS AND FINDINGS: The search strategy centred on: treatment burden and qualitative methods. Medline, CINAHL, Embase, and PsychINFO were searched electronically from inception to Dec 2013. No language limitations were set. Teams of two reviewers independently conducted paper screening, data extraction, and data analysis. Data were analysed using framework synthesis informed by Cumulative Complexity Model. Eleven papers reporting data from 294 patients, across a range of conditions, age groups and nationalities were included. Treatment burdens were experienced as a series of disruptions: biographical disruptions involved loss of freedom and independence, restriction of meaningful activities, negative emotions and stigma; relational disruptions included strained family and social relationships and feeling isolated; and, biological disruptions involved physical side-effects. Patients employed "adaptive treatment work" and "rationalised non-adherence" to minimise treatment disruptions. Rationalised non-adherence was sanctioned by health professionals at end of life; at other times it was a "secret-act" which generated feelings of guilt and impacted on family and clinical relationships. CONCLUSIONS: Treatments generate negative emotions and physical side effects, strain relationships and affect identity. Patients minimise these disruptions through additional adaptive work and/or by non-adherence. This affects physical outcomes and care relationships. There is a need for clinicians to engage with patients in honest conversations about treatment disruptions and the 'adhere-ability' of recommended regimens. Patient-centred practice requires management plans which optimise outcomes and minimise disruptions.
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
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.
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 [223]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 44 · Cited by 173
- Authors
- Demain, S., Gonçalves, A.-C., Areia, C., Oliveira, R., Marcos, A. J., Marques, A., Parmar, R., & Hunt, K.
- Affiliations
- National Institute for Health and Care Research (GB)
- University of Southampton (GB)
- University of Aveiro (PT)
- Corresponding author
- Demain, Sara
- Venue
- PLOS ONE
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2015-05-29
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- e0125457
- ISSN
- 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4449201
- OpenAlex
- W1832399255
- Cited by
- 173
- References
- 44
- Citations by year
- 2026: 23 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 2
- FWCI
- 1.65
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (acceptedVersion)
- PEARL (University of Plymouth) (submittedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Portuguese National Funding Agency for Science, Research and Technology (RCAAP Project by FCT) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- National Institute for Health and Care Research (PDF-2011-04-016)
- European Commission
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Medication Adherence and Compliance
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Chronic Disease Management Strategies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Pharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
- Keywords
- treatment burden, chronic disease, medication adherence, treatment interruption, patient strategies, adverse effects, stigma, social isolation, family relationships, end-of-life care, patient-centered care, treatment regimens
- MeSH terms
- Chronic Disease, Humans, Disease Management, Qualitative Research
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