IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jriskr/v16y2013i1p113-129.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Part II: the role of trust in patient noncompliance: a quantitative case study of users of statins for the chronic treatment of high cholesterol in New York City

Author

Listed:
  • Sweta Chakraborty

Abstract

It is widely known that increased perceived risk associated with a drug, even if in a completely different class of medicines, may influence patient compliance to their treatment regimes. Media reports of alleged scandals and controversies associated with certain prescription drugs, such as Vioxx, are easily accessible in public recollections and may influence attitudes towards other drugs. Reports of increased noncompliance following such media reports contribute to the existing 50--70% of the US adult population of chronic prescription users who do not take medications in accordance with physicians' instructions. This can have impacts ranging from faster onset of disease for the noncompliant individual to wider impacts for society as a whole, such as increased federal spending on social health funds. The rates of noncompliance described, and their alleged relationship with increased public suspicions, suggest a role for trust in shaping compliance behavior in patients. This study applied the mental models approach for the purpose of understanding lay perceptions in relation to existing scientific information on the risk of noncompliance. In accordance with the approach, 30 participants were interviewed, and 200 questionnaires were administered in New York City to eligible users of statins for the chronic treatment of high cholesterol. This original research reports the primary findings from the 200 confirmatory questionnaires in relation to the qualitative interview findings from the previous article. The themes of distrust in various actors in the health care system identified during the interviews were supported statistically through the questionnaires, and a statistically significant correlation between distrust and noncompliance was established. The results of this research should be taken into consideration for any future efforts at addressing risks associated with patient noncompliance.

Suggested Citation

  • Sweta Chakraborty, 2013. "Part II: the role of trust in patient noncompliance: a quantitative case study of users of statins for the chronic treatment of high cholesterol in New York City," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(1), pages 113-129, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:16:y:2013:i:1:p:113-129
    DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2012.727098
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/13669877.2012.727098
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/13669877.2012.727098?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. K. David Pijawka & Alvin H. Mushkatel, 1991. "Public Opposition To The Siting Of The High‐Level Nuclear Waste Repository: The Importance Of Trust," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 10(4), pages 180-194, December.
    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. Jaeyoung Lim & Kuk-Kyoung Moon, 2021. "Can Political Trust Weaken the Relationship between Perceived Environmental Threats and Perceived Nuclear Threats? Evidence from South Korea," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(18), pages 1-13, September.
    2. O O Ibitayo & K D Pijawka, 1999. "Reversing NIMBY: An Assessment of State Strategies for Siting Hazardous-Waste Facilities," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 17(4), pages 379-389, August.
    3. Timothy C. Earle, 2004. "Thinking Aloud about Trust: A Protocol Analysis of Trust in Risk Management," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(1), pages 169-183, February.
    4. David Fang & Chen-Ling Fang & Bi-Kun Tsai & Li-Chi Lan & Wen-Shan Hsu, 2012. "Relationships among Trust in Messages, Risk Perception, and Risk Reduction Preferences Based upon Avian Influenza in Taiwan," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-16, August.
    5. Byoung Joon Kim & Seoyong Kim & Youngcheoul Kang & Sohee Kim, 2022. "Searching for the New Behavioral Model in Energy Transition Age: Analyzing the Forward and Reverse Causal Relationships between Belief, Attitude, and Behavior in Nuclear Policy across Countries," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(11), pages 1-24, June.
    6. Gordon, Joel A. & Balta-Ozkan, Nazmiye & Nabavi, Seyed Ali, 2022. "Beyond the triangle of renewable energy acceptance: The five dimensions of domestic hydrogen acceptance," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 324(C).
    7. Bronfman, Nicolás C. & Jiménez, Raquel B. & Arévalo, Pilar C. & Cifuentes, Luis A., 2012. "Understanding social acceptance of electricity generation sources," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 246-252.
    8. Nick Allum, 2007. "An Empirical Test of Competing Theories of Hazard‐Related Trust: The Case of GM Food," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(4), pages 935-946, August.
    9. Michael K. Lindell & Ronald W. Perry, 2012. "The Protective Action Decision Model: Theoretical Modifications and Additional Evidence," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(4), pages 616-632, April.
    10. Annukka Vainio & Riikka Paloniemi & Vilja Varho, 2017. "Weighing the Risks of Nuclear Energy and Climate Change: Trust in Different Information Sources, Perceived Risks, and Willingness to Pay for Alternatives to Nuclear Power," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 557-569, March.
    11. Yeonjae Ryu & Sunhee Kim & Seoyong Kim, 2018. "Does Trust Matter? Analyzing the Impact of Trust on the Perceived Risk and Acceptance of Nuclear Power Energy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), 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:taf:jriskr:v:16:y:2013:i:1:p:113-129. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RJRR20 .

    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.