BackgroundPatients’ beliefs about treatment influence treatment engagement and adherence. The Necessity-Concerns Framework postulates that adherence is influenced by implicit judgements of personal need for the treatment (necessity beliefs) and concerns about the potential adverse consequences of taking it.ObjectiveTo assess the utility of the NCF in explaining nonadherence to prescribed medicines.Data sourcesWe searched EMBASE, Medline, PsycInfo, CDSR/DARE/CCT and CINAHL from January 1999 to April 2013 and handsearched reference sections from relevant articles.Study eligibility criteriaStudies using the Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire (BMQ) to examine perceptions of personal necessity for medication and concerns about potential adverse effects, in relation to a measure of adherence to medication.ParticipantsPatients with long-term conditions.Study appraisal and synthesis methodsSystematic review and meta-analysis of methodological quality was assessed by two independent reviewers. We pooled odds ratios for adherence using random effects models.ResultsWe identified 3777 studies, of which 94 (N = 25,072) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Across studies, higher adherence was associated with stronger perceptions of necessity of treatment, OR = 1.742, 95% CI [1.569, 1.934], p<0.0001, and fewer Concerns about treatment, OR = 0.504, 95% CI: [0.450, 0.564], p<0.0001. These relationships remained significant when data were stratified by study size, the country in which the research was conducted and the type of adherence measure used.LimitationsFew prospective longitudinal studies using objective adherence measures were identified.ConclusionsThe Necessity-Concerns Framework is a useful conceptual model for understanding patients’ perspectives on prescribed medicines. Taking account of patients’ necessity beliefs and concerns could enhance the quality of prescribing by helping clinicians to engage patients in treatment decisions and support optimal adherence to appropriate prescriptions.

Little is known about the correlates of cancer information avoidance and whether people with negative feelings and beliefs about cancer are more likely to avoid cancer information, allowing such thoughts and feelings to persist unchallenged. Using the Extended Parallel Processing Model as a theoretical guide, we tested the hypothesis that cancer fear and fatalism would predict cancer information avoidance but that part of this effect would be mediated via cancerspecific threat and efficacy beliefs. A community sample of older adults, ages 50 to 70 years (n = 1,442), completed a postal questionnaire that included the Powe Fatalism Inventory and the Champion Cancer Fear scale along with other measures of cancer-specific beliefs and demographic variables. Higher levels of cancer fear were positively associated with higher levels of cancer information avoidance, and part of this relationship was mediated via perceived cancer severity. The relationship between cancer fatalism and cancer information avoidance was partly mediated by severity and response-efficacy beliefs. This research shows that people with negative views about cancer are more likely to avoid cancer information. This means people with higher levels of cancer fear and fatalism are less likely to learn about positive developments made in the field of cancer control, allowing such negative feelings and views to continue. Research needs to focus on how to get positive messages about improvements in cancer prevention and control through to people who are fearful of and fatalistic about the disease. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2008;17(8):1872 -9)

We identified salient, adherence-related beliefs about AEDs. Patient-centered interventions to support medicine optimization for people with epilepsy should take account of these beliefs.

Purpose of reviewNonadherence to appropriately prescribed medication for psychiatric disorders prevents patients from realizing the full benefits of their treatment and negatively impacts on individuals, their families and the healthcare system. Understanding and reducing nonadherence is therefore a key challenge to quality care for patients with psychiatric disorders. This review highlights findings regarding the prevalence and consequence of nonadherence, barriers to adherence and new intervention methods from 2012 onwards.Recent findingsRecent research has highlighted that nonadherence is a global challenge for psychiatry and has linked nonadherence to poorer outcomes, including hospital admissions, suicide and mortality. Optimizing medication regimens can reduce nonadherence; however, often a complex interplay of factors affects individuals’ motivation and ability to follow their prescription. Psychiatrists can enable patients to develop an accurate model of their illness and treatment and facilitate adherence. However, nonadherence is often a hidden issue within consultations. Novel interventions using new technologies and tailoring techniques may have the potential to reduce nonadherence.SummaryNonadherence remains a significant challenge for patients with psychiatric disorders, physicians and healthcare systems. New developments demonstrate the importance of developing tailored interventions to enable patients to overcome perceptual and practical barriers to adherence.