Medication non-adherence in adult patients affected by inflammatory bowel disease: a critical review and update of the determining factors, consequences and possible interventions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Achieving adherence to medications can be a serious challenge for patients affected by inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Medical treatment is fundamental for inducing and maintaining remission, preventing flares and reducing the risk of colorectal cancer. Non-adherence may affect patients' quality of life resulting in unfavourable treatment outcomes, more hospitalizations and higher healthcare-related costs. Recognising and improving adherence is therefore a primary aim for the treatment of IBD. Areas covered: We critically discuss the current knowledge on medication non-adherence in adult patients affected by IBD, also mentioning a few issues concerning the paediatric and adolescent populations. In particular, we reviewed the literature focusing on the definition and detection of non-adherence, on its extent and on the possible non-modifiable and modifiable factors involved (patient-centred, therapy-related, disease-related and physician-related). Furthermore, we analysed the interventional studies performed so far. The literature review was conducted through PubMed addressing medication non-adherence in IBD, using the keywords 'adherence' and related terms and 'IBD, ulcerative colitis or Crohn's disease'. Expert commentary: Adherence to therapy for IBD is a complex yet fundamental issue that cannot be solved by addressing a single aspect only. Future studies should focus on patient-tailored and multidimensional interventions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".