Abstract:The extent to which patients take prescribed medications ‘as directed’ and why they do not have been important issues in health research for many decades [1] and subject to recent review [2–6]. These issues are important in rheumatic diseases, given the primary reliance upon medication to control symptoms and improve patients’ functional ability and longevity [7]. Not taking required medications can therefore have both a personal health impact and health-economics consequences [3]. In recent years patients have shown increased interest in their health-care; this is partially due to a boom in access to information technology coupled with increased health coverage in traditional media sources [8]. A fresh approach to medication prescribing is required, one that evolves away from the paternalistic approach of patient compliance or adherence towards the more recently introduced philosophy of patient–professional concordance. Previous research has lacked consistent definition and measurement of medication-taking and, particularly in rheumatology, has rarely investigated biopsychosocial predictors in a longitudinal or interventional fashion. In this editorial we reiterate the definitions of patient ‘compliance’ and ‘adherence’ and comment on the implications of using these terms. We review some of the relevant research findings on patient compliance/adherence in rheumatology and finish by outlining the more recent philosophical and clinical move towards patient–professional concordance along with some of the practical implications for its impending application in routine clinical practice. We highlight potential predictors of medication taking that should be integrated in future research. We also examine how medication taking and its potential predictors should be measured in research by detailing key methods and identifying areas in which they can be applied. Definitions of key concepts and our recommended measures of these are summarized in Table 1. The conceptualization and operationalization of the ‘correct’ taking of prescription medications often reflects the dominant paternalistic approach to health-care. As Charavel et al. [9] put it, ‘the physician–patient relationship has always implied that the physician alone makes the treatment decision, while the passive and dependent patient is obliged to comply with the physician’s prescription.’ (p. 93, emphasis added.) The verb ‘comply’ implies enforcement through its association with ‘bending the will of another’ ([10], etymology section). This has led to increased use of the verb ‘adhere’, which literally means ‘to stick to’ ([11], etymology section), to describe medication-taking. ‘Adherence’ is described as ‘persistence in a practice or tenet; steady observance or maintenance.’ ([12], section 3). This definition captures the routine that people with chronic rheumatic disease ideally engage in when taking prescription medication. The classic estimate of adherence is that only around 50% of patients adhere to prescription medications [1]. Ten days after a new prescription has been filled, 30% of patients with chronic diseases have missed at least one dose of the medication not on medical advice, half of them unintentionally, the others intentionally [13]. Reasons for missing a dose include side-effects, concerns about the medication and an expressed need for further information about the disease or medication itself, particularly among intentionally non-adherent patients. Medication compliance/adherence may be operationalized (i.e. conceptualized and measured) in many different ways [5], including multi-item questionnaire scales, individual ordinal/ categorical questionnaire items, patients’ and physicians’ categorizations and independent observations such as prescription refill monitoring, electronic dispenser monitoring or metabolite/tracer measuring. We will now describe how estimates of adherence may differ depending on the ways in which adherence is assessed, as well as the exact disease and medication investigated. We also provide details of example studies that raise some of the central issues requiring attention in this field. In general rheumatology clinics, Berry et al. [14] found global non-adherence (answering ‘no’ to the question ‘Have you taken medicine regularly as prescribed or directed?’) more common among new (28%) than follow-up patients (1%). No new patients were on disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), but they were more likely than follow-up patients to be on NSAIDs. As NSAIDs are suitable for use according to symptoms, up to a maximum directed dose, this may explain the global difference in adherence. The ‘as needed’ use of NSAIDs and analgesia needs to be clearly defined in this type of research so that it is considered in terms of the directions given to patients, some of whom may define themselves as non-adherent if they believe they have to take an NSAID regularly despite being given ‘as needed’ directions. Among lupus patients, Petri et al. [15] used a physician’s opinion to categorize patients as adherent or not, with some evidence in hospital records only required to confirm non-adherence. Patients of Afro-Caribbean origin were more commonly categorized as non-adherent (56%) than white patients (34%), and this was thought to explain poorer renal outcomes in the Afro-Caribbean group. In contrast, in Mosley-Williams et al.’s study [16], in which patients themselves stated whether they failed to take prescribed medication all the time or did not fill any prescriptions, no difference between Afro-Caribbean and white lupus patients was observed. Only 10% of both racial groups were globally nonadherent. This gross difference in racial variability in adherence between these studies is likely to be an artefact of the completely different operationalizations and requires comparison in future samples. Cultural differences in adherence are possible if socioeconomic differences in material wealth and location impact on access to health-care [15], or if cultural beliefs and perceptions about medication taking vary across groups. The extent of adherence among lupus patients also appears to depend on the medications prescribed. McElhone et al. [17] reported that the prevalence of perfect adherence (always taking the medication as prescribed) among white women with lupus ranged from 100% for azathioprine and 94% for oral steroids to 68% for NSAIDs and 61% for bone-protective medications. Lower adherence may relate to stringent recommendations for the way the latter should be taken [18] and the way the relative

Antimicrobial Susceptibilities of Group B Streptococci Isolated between 1992 and 1996 from Patients with Bacteremia or Meningitis

Immune and metabolic markers for identifying and investigating severe Coronavirus disease and Sepsis in children and young people (pSeP/COVID ChYP study): protocol for a prospective cohort study

Markers of platelet activation foR identification of late onset sEpsis in infaNTs: PARENT study protocol

A six molecule nenonatal serum metabolite biosignature has high neonatal sepsis predictability and resolves upon treatment completion.

Identifying immune signatures of sepsis to increase diagnostic accuracy in very preterm babies

Patterns of antibiotic use, pathogens, and prediction of mortality in hospitalized neonates and young infants with sepsis: A global neonatal sepsis observational cohort study (NeoOBS)

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic value of four biomarkers in detecting neonatal sepsis in low- and middle-income countries

Sepsis epidemiology in Australian and New Zealand children (SENTINEL): protocol for a multicountry prospective observational study

AME Evidence Series 001-the Society for Translational Medicine: Clinical Practice Guidelines for Diagnosis and Early Identification of Sepsis in the Hospital

Integrated host-microbe plasma metagenomics for sepsis diagnosis in a prospective cohort of critically ill adults

Serum Phenylalanine, Myo-inositol, and 1,5-Anhydrohexitol biosignature differentiate neonatal sepsis cases from controls

Biomarkers of Neonatal Sepsis: Where We Are and Where We Are Going

Enhancing Early Detection of Sepsis in Neonates through Multimodal Biosignal Integration: A Study of Pulse Oximetry, Near-Infrared Spectroscopy (NIRS), and Skin Temperature Monitoring

'Compliance' is futile but is 'concordance' between rheumatology patients and health professionals attainable?

Clinical predictors of bacteraemia in neonates with suspected early-onset sepsis in Malawi: a prospective cohort study

Assessing Diagnostic Performance of Molecular Culture for Neonatal Sepsis: Protocol of the CHAMPIONS Study

Early detection of late-onset neonatal sepsis from noninvasive biosignals using deep learning: A multicenter prospective development and validation study

Discrimination of serum metabolomics profiles in infants with sepsis, based on liquid chromatography-mass spectrometer

Development and validation of a sepsis diagnostic scoring model for neonates with suspected sepsis

Liver support systems: the low clearance of model hepatic excretory anions by charcoal hemoperfusion.

Vital sign‐based detection of sepsis in neonates using machine learning