ArticleInternational clinical psychopharmacology2026
Assessing treatment adherence in psychiatry: a comparison of clinical judgment and therapeutic drug monitoring in acute care.
Article in International clinical psychopharmacology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Treatment adherence is the cornerstone of the management of psychiatric disorders in the prevention of acute symptom exacerbation, relapse, and hospitalization. Patients are usually treated with psychotropic polypharmacy, including complex regimens, which may contribute to nonadherence. In this real-world acute setting study, we used direct [therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM)] and indirect (emergency room and acute ward clinical judgments) measures to assess adherence in 145 patients with severe mental illnesses. Logistic regressions were used to predict adherence and agreement between adherence measures. The adherence estimates were predicted by sociodemographic and clinical factors and differed across methods: 24.8% for TDM, 55.9 and 50.4% for emergency room and acute ward clinical judgments, respectively. TDM aligned with clinical judgments in about 50% of cases, whereas the agreement between independent clinical judgments reached 84.9%. The concordance on adherence estimates between methods was influenced by sociodemographics, lifestyle, and clinical factors. Our findings underscore a discrepancy between different methods of adherence estimation. These methods capture distinct aspects of adherence and differ in their applicability and reliability, especially in acute settings. Future studies, integrating direct and indirect adherence estimates, are warranted to improve the accuracy of treatment adherence estimation for decision-making in managing exacerbation of psychiatric disorders.
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.