Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This paper is a report of an analysis of the concept of adherence. BACKGROUND: The transition in terminology from compliance to adherence, and more recently to concordance, requires re-clarification of 'adherence' as a concept in nursing practice. Differences exist in the use of the term adherence and how or if it differs from compliance or concordance. DATA SOURCES: Using the Medical Subject Headings terms adherence, non-adherence and treatment refusal, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Medline, PsychINFO and Cochrane library databases were searched for publications between 1970 and 2007. Method. The evolutionary analytic method was used to identify and explore transitions in the concept of adherence over time and across healthcare disciplines. A representative sample of papers was identified from the disciplines of nursing, medicine, psychology and pharmacy. RESULTS: We identified 114 papers: 27 from nursing, 39 from psychology, 33 from general medicine and 15 from pharmacology sources. The final sample included eight from pharmacy and 15 from mental health, medicine and nursing. We found no distinct differentiation between adherence and compliance. The surrogate terms serving as manifestations of adherence are concordance, agreement, cooperation and partnership. The most common definition found was as follows: 'Adherence can be defined as the extent to which patients follow the instructions they are given for prescribed treatments'. No definition of adherence exists that reflects a patient-centred approach, the dynamic nature of adherence behaviour and the power imbalance implied by these terms. CONCLUSION: This concept analysis of adherence is a preliminary step towards broadening nurses' appreciation of the complexity of patient adherence behaviour.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.034 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".