English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Hippocrates observed that many patients failed to take prescribed medicines but were not averse to blaming the physician if their condition deteriorated. Medicines have since improved, but perversity persists: poor compliance with immune suppressants, a leading reason for rejection of transplanted organs, is a case in point (Didlake et al., 1988; Rovelli et al., 1989). Dosing of most drugs, including antimicrobials, is an act of faith, and benefits may not be immediately perceived; in the case of prophylactic agents, it may be impossible to assess the relationship between dose and outcome. For most drugs, underdosing is the main compliance error. Compliance has also been overestimated in clinical trials (Pullar et al., 1989; Rudd et al., 1989). Most physicians acknowledge that compliance is often a problem, though they may deny it in their own patients. Poor methods for assessing compliance have perpetuated these uncertainties. Since 1986-7 two new methods have gained acceptance as generally reliable measures of compliance. These open the way to realization of the opportunities suggested by the title of this article.

Variable patient compliance in ambulatory trials—nuisance, threat, opportunity