This thesis examines treatment adherence among chronically ill patients in Denmark and Hungary, testing competing explanations from Bauman's liquid modernity theory and Schwartz's value theory. Using data from the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP 2021), the analysis investigated whether structural conditions or personal values better predict adherence patterns across contrasting welfare regimes. The empirical analysis produced largely null findings. Models explained only 8% of variance, and most hypothesized relationships were not significant. In Denmark, frequent drinking and perceived overmedicalization showed paradoxical positive associations with adherence. In Hungary, patterns were weak and inconsistent. Neither values nor trust predicted adherence as expected. These results must be interpreted cautiously. The study used doctor visit frequency as an adherence proxy, assuming fewer visits indicate better disease management. However, this measure cannot distinguish between routine monitoring visits (indicating good adherence) and complication-related visits (indicating poor adherence). The counterintuitive findings likely reflect this measurement problem. Despite limitations, the study contributes by demonstrating that standard predictors explain very little variance in healthcare utilization among chronically ill populations. This suggests adherence depends on factors not easily captured in surveys: symptom severity, provider relationships, and daily instability. The weak findings may support Bauman's argument that contemporary structural instability undermines the conditions required for long- term health management. Future research requires better adherence measures, larger samples, and methods capturing the dynamic nature of chronic illness management in liquid modernity.
Hannes Zefyrin (Wed,) studied this question.