ArticlePatient preference and adherence2016
Ethical considerations in adherence research.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Can an app supporting psoriasis patients improve adherence to topical treatment? A single-blind randomized controlled trial.BMC dermatology · 2018Trial
- Association between Chronic Misophonia-Induced Stress and Gastrointestinal Pathology in Children-A Hypothesis.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Adherence in Atopic Dermatitis.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2024Article
- Article
- Perceptions of various treatment approaches for adults and children with misophonia.Journal of affective disorders · 2022Article
- Methodological considerations of investigating adherence to using offloading devices among people with diabetes.Patient preference and adherence · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Poor adherence to treatment is a common cause of medical treatment failure. Studying adherence is complicated by the potential for the study environment to impact adherence behavior. Studies performed without informing patients about adherence monitoring must balance the risks of deception against the potential benefits of the knowledge to be gained. Ethically monitoring a patient's adherence to a treatment plan without full disclosure of the monitoring plan requires protecting the patient's rights and upholding the fiduciary obligations of the investigator. Adherence monitoring can utilize different levels of deception varying from stealth monitoring, debriefing after the study while informing the subject that some information had been withheld in regard to the use of adherence monitoring (withholding), informed consent that discloses some form of adherence monitoring is being used and will be disclosed at the end of the study (authorized deception), and full disclosure. Different approaches offer different benefits and potential pitfalls. The approach used must balance the risk of nondisclosure against the potential for confounding the adherence monitoring data and the potential benefits that adherence monitoring data will have for the research subjects and/or other populations. This commentary aims to define various methods of adherence monitoring and to provide a discussion of the ethical considerations that accompany the use of each method and adherence monitoring in general as it is used in clinical research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.