Key result
Perceived risks, benefits, barriers, and self-efficacy influence treatment adherence in patients with ACS.
Why the study?
There was a need to gain an understanding of potential aspects influencing treatment adherence for patients with acute coronary syndrome from both the patient and nurse perspective.
Qualitative interviews identified perceived risk, benefits, barriers, self-efficacy, and cues to action as key factors influencing treatment adherence after acute coronary syndrome.
May guide adherence counseling in ACS; hypothesis-generating for intervention trials.
AIM: To gain an understanding of potential aspects influencing treatment adherence for patients with acute coronary syndrome. DESIGN: A qualitative deductive approach. METHODS: Patient and nurse participants were recruited from a single hospital in Australia, who participated in a semi-structured interview. Data were analysed using a deductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Fifteen patients with acute coronary syndrome and 13 registered nurses participated in the study. Potential aspects influencing treatment adherence included perceived risk, perceived benefits, perceived barriers, self-efficacy, and cues to action. CONCLUSION: This study provides insights into the limited evidence into understanding the aspects that influence treatment adherence for acute coronary syndrome from both the patient and the nurse perspective. This is important given the continuing low rate of treatment adherence among patients with acute coronary syndrome. Future studies are recommended to consider patients' perceived benefits, barriers, and cues to action that target increased treatment adherence for this population. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rashidi et al. (2025) studied Acute coronary syndrome (n=28). Perceived risk, perceived benefits, perceived barriers, self-efficacy, and cues to action were identified as key aspects influencing treatment adherence in patients with acute coronary syndrome.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: