Patients’ 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. To assess the utility of the NCF in explaining nonadherence to prescribed medicines. We searched EMBASE, Medline, PsycInfo, CDSR/DARE/CCT and CINAHL from January 1999 to April 2013 and handsearched reference sections from relevant articles. Studies 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. Patients with long-term conditions. Systematic review and meta-analysis of methodological quality was assessed by two independent reviewers. We pooled odds ratios for adherence using random effects models. We 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. Few prospective longitudinal studies using objective adherence measures were identified. The 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.

Objectives To investigate beliefs about medicines and their association with medicine adherence in patients with chronic diseases in China. Design A cross-sectional questionnaire-based study Setting Two large urban hospitals in Hefei and Tianjin, China Participants Hospital inpatients (313 stroke patients) and outpatients (315 diabetic patients and 339 rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients) were recruited between January 2014 and September 2014. Outcome measures The Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire (BMQ), assessing patients’ beliefs about the specific medicine (Specific-Necessity and Specific-Concerns) prescribed for their conditions (stroke/diabetes/RA) and more general background beliefs about pharmaceuticals as a class of treatment (BMQ-General Benefit, Harm and Overuse); the Perceived Sensitivity to Medicines scale (PSM) assessed patients’ beliefs about how sensitive they were to the effects of medicines and the Medication Adherence Report Scale. The association between non-adherence and beliefs about medicines was assessed using a logistic regression model. Results Patients with diabetes mellitus had a stronger perceived need for treatment (mean (SD) Specific-Necessity score, 3.75 (0.40)) than patients with stroke (3.69 (0.53)) and RA (3.66 (0.44)) (p=0.049). Moderate correlations were observed between Specific-Concerns and General-Overuse, General-Harm and PSM (Pearson correlation coefficients, 0.39, 0.49 and 0.49, respectively, p<0.01). Three hundred and eleven patients were non-adherent to their medicine (159 (51.0%) in the stroke group, 60 (26.7%) in the diabetes mellitus group and 62 (19.8%) in the RA group, p<0.01). Across the whole sample, after adjusting for demographic characteristics, non-adherence was associated with patients who had higher concerns about their medicines (OR, 1.35, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.71) and patients who believed that they were personally sensitive to the effects of medications (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.85). Conclusion The BMQ is a useful tool to identify patients at risk of non-adherence. In the future, adherence intervention studies may use the BMQ to screen for patients who are at risk of non-adherence and to map interventional support.

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 cancer-specific 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)

Nonadherence 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 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. Nonadherence 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.

Nonadherence to antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) can result in suboptimal outcomes for patients. This study aimed to assess the utility of a theory-based approach to understanding patient perspectives on AEDs and adherence. Patients with epilepsy, identified by a GP case note review, were mailed validated questionnaires assessing their perceptions of AEDs and their adherence to them. Most (84.9%) of the 398 AED-treated respondents accepted the necessity of AEDs, but over half expressed doubts, with 55% disagreeing or uncertain about the statement 'I would prefer to take epilepsy medication than risk a seizure'. Over a third (36.4%) expressed strong concerns about the potential negative effects of AEDs. We used self-report and medication possession ratio to classify 36.4% of patients as nonadherent. Nonadherence was related to beliefs about medicines and implicit attitudes toward AEDs (p<0.05). Adherence-related attitudes toward AEDs were correlated with general beliefs about pharmaceuticals (BMQ General: General Harm, General Overuse, and General Benefit scales) and perceptions of personal sensitivity to medicines (PSM scale). 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.