1986
DOI: 10.1007/bf00754552
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Predictors of appointment non-compliance in community mental health patients

Abstract: This study identified two variables, unemployment and alcohol or substance abuse related diagnoses, to be the only predictors of appointment non-compliance out of various demographic and clinical variables. The results also indicate that appointment non-compliance should be treated as a continuous rather than a dichotomous variable in future research. Programmatic implications for reducing noncompliance are discussed.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

1
14
0

Year Published

1992
1992
2010
2010

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 26 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
1
14
0
Order By: Relevance
“…When holding all other variables constant, economic problems were associated with an increase in the odds of treatment noncompliance of up to 2.3 times. The significant role of economic factors in this model is further supported by analyses reporting that financial strain (Dodrill, Batzel, Wilensky, & Yerby, 1987), unemployment (Buchanan, Soo Meng, & Marks, 1996;Dubinsky, 1986;Sung, Belenko, & Feng, 2001), substance use (Dubinsky), and low levels of educational attainment (Edwards & Rollnick, 1997;Sung et al, 2001;Wallace, Cutler, & Haines, 1985) were indicative of noncompliance with treatment for various mental and physical disorders.…”
Section: Financial Strain and Treatment Compliancementioning
confidence: 79%
“…When holding all other variables constant, economic problems were associated with an increase in the odds of treatment noncompliance of up to 2.3 times. The significant role of economic factors in this model is further supported by analyses reporting that financial strain (Dodrill, Batzel, Wilensky, & Yerby, 1987), unemployment (Buchanan, Soo Meng, & Marks, 1996;Dubinsky, 1986;Sung, Belenko, & Feng, 2001), substance use (Dubinsky), and low levels of educational attainment (Edwards & Rollnick, 1997;Sung et al, 2001;Wallace, Cutler, & Haines, 1985) were indicative of noncompliance with treatment for various mental and physical disorders.…”
Section: Financial Strain and Treatment Compliancementioning
confidence: 79%
“…For example, a study of 4669 patients (not necessarily children) from an urban family practice residency clinic found the following factors to be associated with appointment keeping: older age, Asian or white race/ethnicity, private or managed care insurance, longer distances to travel to the clinic, and appointments scheduled for the day on which they contacted the clinic. 3 Factors that have been associated with visit noncompliance include male gender, 4 divorced/separated or single status, 4 younger age, 5 lower socioeconomic status, 6 unemployment, 7 alcohol or substance abuse, 7 parental psychiatric disorder, 8 absence of telephone reminders, 9 having no health insurance or being insured through medical assistance, 5,10 and having appointments that might evoke embarrassment or fear (eg, psychiatry or gynecology appointment). 4 One study found that provision of a taxicab voucher to pregnant, low income women resulted in a 22% increase in compliance with attending the initial prenatal visit.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This is shown in manifest behaviour, (a) by his or her willingness to attend the follow-up examination at all six months later, and (b) by his or her development of plaque, calculus and gingivitis over the same period. As we have argued in another report (Camner et al, 1994) there is a long and well-reasoned research tradition of both attendance and oral health as indicators of compliance (Dubinsky, 1986;Duda, Smart & Tappe, 1989;Fishbein & Stasson, 1990;Gilbert & Maxwell, 1987;Horowitz, 1978;McCaul, Bakdash, Geboy, Gerbert & Tedesco, 1990;Tedesco, Keffer, Davis & Christersson, 1992;Weinstein e t al., 1989;Wells, McDiarmid & Bayatpour, 1990;Zoega, Barr & Barsky, 1991).…”
mentioning
confidence: 86%