“My patients are better than yours”: optimistic bias about patients’ medication adherence by European health care professionals

Abstract

ObjectivesThe objectives of this study were to determine the perceptions of European physicians, nurses, and pharmacists about the extent of nonadherence by patients in their country relative to their perception of nonadherence by their own patients, and to investigate the occurrence of optimistic bias about medication adherence. The study explored a key cognitive bias for prevalence and likelihood estimates in the context of health care professionals’ beliefs about patients’ use of medicines.MethodsA cross-sectional online survey of 3,196 physicians (855), nurses (1,294), and pharmacists (1,047) in ten European countries (Austria, Belgium, England, France, Germany, Hungary, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, and Switzerland) was used.ResultsParticipants differed in their perceptions of the prevalence of medication adherence initiation, implementation, and persistence present in their own patients with a chronic illness in comparison to patients with a chronic illness in general. Health care professionals demonstrated optimistic bias for initiation and persistence with medicine taking, perceiving their own patients to be more likely to initiate and persist with treatment than other patients, but reported significantly lower prevalence of medication adherence levels for their own patients than for patients in general. This finding is discussed in terms of motivational and cognitive factors that may foster optimistic bias by health care professionals about their patients, including heightened knowledge of, and positive beliefs about, their own professional competence and service delivery relative to care and treatment provided elsewhere.ConclusionHealth care professionals in Europe demonstrated significant differences in their perceptions of medication adherence prevalence by their own patients in comparison to patients in general. Some evidence of optimistic bias by health care professionals about their patients’ behavior is observed. Further social cognitive theory-based research of health care professional beliefs about medication adherence is warranted to enable theory-based practitioner-focused interventions to be tested and implemented.

Understanding Medication Nonadherence after Kidney Transplant

“…Unfortunately, health care providers are very poor judges of patient adherence and even seem perhaps biased to believe their patients are more adherent than average. 8 Because post-transplant adherence with immunosuppression is pivotal to the success of the transplant, two questions are logically asked: "when does MNA begin?" and "how much adherence is enough?"…”

Hypertension healthcare professional beliefs and behaviour regarding patient medication adherence: a survey conducted among European Society of Hypertension Centres of Excellence

“…Whether the differences reported between the community and reference centres are true or reflects a healthcare professionals' optimistic bias cannot be ascertained. Indeed, primary care physicians treating patients with chronic diseases have given similar answers, with their own patients having a higher likelihood to be adherent and persistent [15,16]. Regarding the percentage of patients who do not initiate their medications, the physicians' perception is in line with data indicating that primary non-adherence, that is, not initiating a prescription, affects 24-28% of patients with hypertension in the United States and is frequent and of the same magnitude in almost all patients with chronic diseases [17,18].…”

Evaluation of Transplant Candidates With a History of Nonadherence: An Opinion Piece

“…However, a clinicians’ perception has not been consistently demonstrated to predict certain domains of nonadherence such as medication adherence. 23 , 24 Some tools to assess for the risk of nonadherence have been developed and validated but only in the posttransplant setting and mostly pertain to medication adherence. 18 , 25 - 28 Some of these studies are limited by their single-center and retrospective design, and small sample size.…”