Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34247235›Full record

ArticleRheumatology (Oxford, England)2022

Medication decision-making and adherence in lupus: patient-physician discordance and the impact of previous 'adverse medical experiences'.

Melanie Sloan, Elliott Lever, Caroline Gordon, Rupert Harwood, Sofia Georgopoulou, Felix Naughton, Chris Wincup, Stephen Sutton, David D'Cruz

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Rheumatology (Oxford, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Ten tips in lupus nephritis management.Clinical kidney journal · 2025
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.

Melanie SloanDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge.
Elliott LeverRheumatology Department, Northwick Park Hospital, Harrow.
Caroline GordonRheumatology Research Group, Institute of Inflammation and Ageing, College of Medical and Dental Science, University of Birmingham, Birmingham.
Rupert HarwoodPatient and Public Involvement in Lupus Research Group, Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge.
Sofia GeorgopoulouDepartment of Inflammation Biology, King's College London, London.
Felix NaughtonBehavioural and Implementation Science Group, School of Health Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich.ORCID 0000-0001-9790-2796
Chris WincupDepartment of Rheumatology, University College London.ORCID 0000-0002-8742-8311
Stephen SuttonDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge.
David D'CruzThe Louise Coote Lupus Unit, Guy's and St Thomas', NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
University of Cambridge · GBGuy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust · GBKing's College London · GBNorthwick Park Hospital · GBUniversity College London · GBUniversity of Birmingham · GBUniversity of East Anglia · GB

Funding

Versus Arthritis 21992
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesMedication adherence is critical in the successful management of lupus. There is very limited existing literature on reasons why non-adherence is not reported. This study explores the impact of current and previous medical experiences on patient satisfaction, adherence and reporting of non-adherence.

methodsMixed methodology involved thematic analysis of in-depth interviews (n = 23) to further explore the statistically analysed quantitative survey findings (n = 186).

resultsThis study identified five themes: (i) physician-patient discordance and a 'hierarchy of evidence' in medication decisions; (ii) the association of adherence with satisfaction with care; (iii) the persisting impact of past adverse medical experiences (AMEs); (iv) the dynamic balance of patient-physician control; and (v) holistic care, beyond a purely medication-based focus. Improving quality of life (43% of participants) and a supportive medical relationship (24%) were the main reasons for adherence. Patient-priorities and self-reported symptoms were perceived as less important to physicians than organ-protection and blood results. Non-reporters of non-adherence, non-adherers and those with past AMEs (e.g. psychosomatic misdiagnoses) had statistically significant lower satisfaction with care. The importance of listening to patients was a key component of every theme, and associated with patient satisfaction and adherence. The mean rating for rheumatologist's listening skills was 2.88 for non-adherers compared with 3.53 for other participants (mean difference 0.65, P = 0.003).

conclusionPatients would like more weight and discussion given to self-reported symptoms and quality of life in medication decisions. Greater understanding and interventions are required to alleviate the persisting impact of past AMEs on some patients' wellbeing, behaviour and current medical relationships.

Indexed as

PhysiciansQuality of LifeHumansMedication AdherencePatient SatisfactionPhysician-Patient Relationsmedication adherencepatient behaviourpatient–physician interactionsrheumatologySLE

Identifiers

PMID34247235
PMCPMC8996780
OpenAlexW3178748476

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.