ArticlePatient preference and adherence2020
A Brief Metric Framework for Patient Adherence to Doctor's Advice Based on Behavioral Economics.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Evolving Landscape of Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Pooled it
- Decision Making in Addictive Behaviors Based on Prospect Theory: A Systematic Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study tried to establish a metric framework of patient adherence to doctor's advice based on the expected utility and prospect theories, and it explained why the key to patient adherence to doctor's advice is patients' perceptions.
methodsOur framework is primarily based on two mature theories: expected utility theory and prospect theory. We started with a basic assumption: the doctor is rational and cares for patient's health utility. We analyzed the expected utility of therapy with a definite diagnosis. Then, we considered the impacts of the accuracy of diagnostic techniques. After that, we explored the patient's response to the doctors' advices based on behavioral economics. In addition, we launched a discrete choice experiment to test our main point: perception is the key to patients' adherence. A total of 200 undergraduate students participated in the discrete choice experiment.
resultsThree main factors might impact a rational clinical decision: the therapeutic and side effects of the treatment, patient's true disease risk, and diagnostic accuracy. However, another factor, patient's individual percepion, was crucial for patient's adherence since it may bias the patient's estimations regarding the above three factors. As a result, doctors and patients would have a cognitive gap in the estimation of the disease and the treatment.
conclusionThe results indicate that without the necessary information, better clinical techniques may not help to improve patient adherence, which support our theoretical reasoning forcefully. Therefore, improving patient adherence should be more of a process of empathy and communication rather than a promotion of medical technology.
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.