IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0186458.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is patient empowerment the key to promote adherence? A systematic review of the relationship between self-efficacy, health locus of control and medication adherence

Author

Listed:
  • Lilla Náfrádi
  • Kent Nakamoto
  • Peter J Schulz

Abstract

Background: Current health policies emphasize the need for an equitable doctor-patient relationship, and this requires a certain level of patient empowerment. However, a systematic review of the empirical evidence on how empowerment affects medication adherence—the extent to which patients follow the physician’s prescription of medication intake—is still missing. The goal of this systematic review is to sum up current state-of-the-art knowledge concerning the relationship between patient empowerment and medication adherence across medical conditions. As our conceptualization defines health locus of control and self-efficacy as being crucial components of empowerment, we explored the relationship between these two constructs and medication adherence. Methods: Relevant studies were retrieved through a comprehensive search of Medline and PsychINFO databases (1967 to 2017). In total, 4903 publications were identified. After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria and quality assessment, 154 articles were deemed relevant. Peer-reviewed articles, written in English, addressing the relationship between empowerment (predictor) and medication adherence (outcome) were included. Findings: High levels of self-efficacy and Internal Health Locus of Control are consistently found to promote medication adherence. External control dimensions were found to have mainly negative (Chance and God attributed control beliefs) or ambiguous (Powerful others attributed control beliefs) links to adherence, except for Doctor Health Locus of Control which had a positive association with medication adherence. To fully capture how health locus of control dimensions influence medication adherence, the interaction between the sub-dimensions and the attitudinal symmetry between the doctor and patient, regarding the patient’s control over the disease management, can provide promising new alternatives. Discussion: The beneficial effect of patients’ high internal and concurrent physician-attributed control beliefs suggests that a so-called “joint empowerment” approach can be suitable in order to foster medication adherence, enabling us to address the question of control as a versatile component in the doctor-patient relationship.

Suggested Citation

  • Lilla Náfrádi & Kent Nakamoto & Peter J Schulz, 2017. "Is patient empowerment the key to promote adherence? A systematic review of the relationship between self-efficacy, health locus of control and medication adherence," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(10), pages 1-23, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0186458
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0186458
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0186458
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0186458&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0186458?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Charles, Cathy & Gafni, Amiram & Whelan, Tim, 1997. "Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: What does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango)," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 44(5), pages 681-692, March.
    2. Prigge, Jana-Kristin & Dietz, Beatrix & Homburg, Christian & Hoyer, Wayne D. & Burton, Jennifer L., 2015. "Patient empowerment: A cross-disease exploration of antecedents and consequences," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 375-386.
    3. Charles, Cathy & Gafni, Amiram & Whelan, Tim, 1999. "Decision-making in the physician-patient encounter: revisiting the shared treatment decision-making model," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 49(5), pages 651-661, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Karnieli-Miller, Orit & Eisikovits, Zvi, 2009. "Physician as partner or salesman? Shared decision-making in real-time encounters," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 1-8, July.
    2. Paul C. Schroy III & Karen Emmons & Ellen Peters & Julie T. Glick & Patricia A. Robinson & Maria A. Lydotes & Shamini Mylvanaman & Stephen Evans & Christine Chaisson & Michael Pignone & Marianne Prout, 2011. "The Impact of a Novel Computer-Based Decision Aid on Shared Decision Making for Colorectal Cancer Screening," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(1), pages 93-107, January.
    3. Coast, Joanna, 2018. "A history that goes hand in hand: Reflections on the development of health economics and the role played by Social Science & Medicine, 1967–2017," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 227-232.
    4. Tate, Alexandra, 2020. "Invoking death: How oncologists discuss a deadly outcome," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    5. Wirtz, Veronika & Cribb, Alan & Barber, Nick, 2006. "Patient-doctor decision-making about treatment within the consultation--A critical analysis of models," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 116-124, January.
    6. Shosh Shahrabani & Amiram Gafni & Uri Ben-Zion, 2008. "Low Flu Shot Rates Puzzle—Some Plausible Behavioral Explanations," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 52(1), pages 66-72, March.
    7. Barnett, Erin R. & Boucher, Elizabeth A. & Neubacher, Katrin & Carpenter-Song, Elizabeth A., 2016. "Decision-making around psychotropic medications for children in foster care: Perspectives from foster parents," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 206-213.
    8. Peek, Monica E. & Odoms-Young, Angela & Quinn, Michael T. & Gorawara-Bhat, Rita & Wilson, Shannon C. & Chin, Marshall H., 2010. "Race and shared decision-making: Perspectives of African-Americans with diabetes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 1-9, July.
    9. Krystina Lewis & Dawn Stacey & Dan Matlock, 2014. "Making Decisions About Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators from Implantation to End of Life: An Integrative Review of Patients’ Perspectives," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 7(3), pages 243-260, September.
    10. May, Carl, 2013. "Agency and implementation: Understanding the embedding of healthcare innovations in practice," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 26-33.
    11. Entwistle, Vikki & Williams, Brian & Skea, Zoe & MacLennan, Graeme & Bhattacharya, Siladitya, 2006. "Which surgical decisions should patients participate in and how? Reflections on women's recollections of discussions about variants of hysterectomy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 499-509, January.
    12. Glory Apantaku & Magda Aguiar & K. Julia Kaal & Patrick J. McDonald & Mary B. Connolly & Viorica Hrincu & Judy Illes & Mark Harrison, 2022. "Understanding Attributes that Influence Physician and Caregiver Decisions About Neurotechnology for Pediatric Drug-Resistant Epilepsy: A Formative Qualitative Study to Support the Development of a Dis," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 15(2), pages 219-232, March.
    13. Christoph Engel & Werner Gueth, 2018. "Modeling a satisficing judge," Rationality and Society, , vol. 30(2), pages 220-246, May.
    14. Osei-Frimpong, Kofi & McLean, Graeme & Wilson, Alan & Lemke, Fred, 2020. "Customer coproduction in healthcare service delivery: Examining the influencing effects of the social context," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 82-93.
    15. Mendick, Nicola & Young, Bridget & Holcombe, Christopher & Salmon, Peter, 2010. "The ethics of responsibility and ownership in decision-making about treatment for breast cancer: Triangulation of consultation with patient and surgeon perspectives," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 1904-1911, June.
    16. Hardman, Doug & Geraghty, Adam W.A. & Lown, Mark & Bishop, Felicity L., 2020. "Subjunctive medicine: Enacting efficacy in general practice," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 245(C).
    17. Kirsten McCaffery & Les Irwig & Patrick Bossuyt, 2007. "Patient Decision Aids to Support Clinical Decision Making: Evaluating the Decision or the Outcomes of the Decision," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(5), pages 619-625, September.
    18. Moss, Jennifer L. & Reiter, Paul L. & Rimer, Barbara K. & Brewer, Noel T., 2016. "Collaborative patient-provider communication and uptake of adolescent vaccines," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 100-107.
    19. Paton, Alexis & Armstrong, Natalie & Smith, Lucy & Lotto, Robyn, 2020. "Parents’ decision-making following diagnosis of a severe congenital anomaly in pregnancy: Practical, theoretical and ethical tensions," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 266(C).
    20. France Légaré & Stéphane Turcotte & Dawn Stacey & Stéphane Ratté & Jennifer Kryworuchko & Ian Graham, 2012. "Patients’ Perceptions of Sharing in Decisions," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 5(1), pages 1-19, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0186458. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.