- Research article
- Open Access
- Open Peer Review
A systematic review of the prevalence and determinants of nonadherence to phosphate binding medication in patients with end-stage renal disease
© Karamanidou et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2008
- Received: 28 August 2007
- Accepted: 31 January 2008
- Published: 31 January 2008
Cardiovascular events are the leading cause of death in end stage renal disease (ESRD). Adherence to phosphate binding medication plays a vital role in reducing serum phosphorus and associated cardiovascular risk. This poses a challenge for patients as the regimen is often complex and there may be no noticeable impact of adherence on symptoms. There is a need to establish the level of nonadherence to phosphate binding medication in renal dialysis patients and identify the factors associated with it.
The online databases PsycINFO, Medline, Embase and CINAHL were searched for quantitative studies exploring predictors of nonadherence to phosphate binding medication in ESRD. Rates and predictors of nonadherence were extracted from the papers.
Thirty four studies met the inclusion criteria. There was wide variation in reported rates of non-adherence (22–74% patients nonadherent, mean 51%). This can be partially attributed to differences in the way adherence has been defined and measured. Demographic and clinical predictors of nonadherence were most frequently assessed but only younger age was consistently associated with nonadherence. In contrast psychosocial variables (e.g. patients' beliefs about medication, social support, personality characteristics) were less frequently assessed but were more likely to be associated with nonadherence.
Nonadherence to phosphate binding medication appears to be prevalent in ESRD. Several potentially modifiable psychosocial factors were identified as predictors of nonadherence. There is a need for further, high-quality research to explore these factors in more detail, with the aim of informing the design of an intervention to facilitate adherence.
- Phosphate Binding
- Serum Phosphorus
- Residual Renal Function
- Regimen Complexity
- Serum Phosphorus Level
Cardiovascular events constitute the leading cause of death in dialysis patients, accounting for nearly half of all deaths . The increased incidence of cardiac disease in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) has been associated with hyperphosphatemia and more specifically an elevated Calcium × Phosphate product , making phosphate control an important goal of treatment. Three strategies help to control serum phosphate in ESRD: dialysis, diet restrictions and phosphate binding medication.
Adherence to phosphate binding medication may be a particular challenge for dialysis patients, due to complex treatment regimens that may have no noticeable effect on symptoms. Many patients on dialysis are nonadherent with phosphate binding medication  but the extent of the problem and the reasons for it are poorly understood.
There is a current emphasis in the literature on the importance of facilitating adherence to medication in chronic illnesses [4–6]. In order to develop a theory-based intervention to optimise adherence to phosphate binding medication, there is a need to first understand the factors associated with nonadherence that could be addressed. Previous reviews of predictors of adherence in ESRD have tended to focus on other aspects of the regime (e.g. diet and fluid restrictions, dialysis attendance) [7–10] and have not used comprehensive systematic search strategies [7, 8, 11]. This is the first paper to systematically search and review the literature specifically relating to adherence to phosphate binding medication.
The aims of this review were to assess the prevalence of nonadherence to phosphate binding medication in patients with ESRD and to identify factors associated with low adherence.
Terms used in database searches ($ indicates truncation)
The database search resulted in the identification of 481 papers. Three additional papers were identified through a reference list search. Each paper was evaluated by two independent reviewers. Papers were retained if they contained quantitative studies exploring predictors of nonadherence to PB medication in ESRD, were published in English and were available from the British Library. Qualitative studies were excluded because this review aimed to quantify the number of studies reporting a statistically significant relationship versus the number of studies finding no significant relationship between each possible predictor of nonadherence and nonadherence. Papers were also excluded if they focused on paediatric adherence (patients under 18 years old), were review articles, intervention studies or case studies, or contained secondary analyses on data already included in this review.
The two reviewers extracted information on the rates of nonadherence reported and the predictors of nonadherence explored in each paper. A list of all the variables that had been investigated in relation to nonadherence was compiled. These possible predictors of nonadherence were divided into three categories: demographic, clinical and psychosocial. The number of studies reporting a significant relationship (p < .05) between each variable and nonadherence and the number of studies reporting no significant relationship (p > .05) between each variable and nonadherence were recorded.
Details of the studies included in the review
N Dialysis type
Mean age (years)
Mean time on dialysis (months)
Gender % male
Main statistical analysis
Predictors of adherence
Bame et al, 1993 U.S. 
Multiple logistic regression
Age*, income*, gender, ethnicity, marital status, education
Betts & Crotty, 1988 U.S.
Time on dialysis
Response to illness
> 5 mg/dl
Blanchard et al, 1990 U.S.
40 HD 40 PD
Time on dialysis
Reporting ever missing a dose
Boyer et al, 1990 U.S.
Correlations, multiple regression
Age*, marital status*, gender, ethnicity, income, education
Time on dialysis
Christensen et al, 1994 U.S.
52 HD 34 PD
Age**, gender, marital status, education
Diabetic status, time on dialysis, transplant history, type of dialysis
Information vigilance, active coping
Christensen et al, 1995 U.S.
72 HD or PD
Correlations, stepwise regression
Time on dialysis, transplant history
Neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, conscientiousness*
Christensen et al, 1996a U.S.
Age, education, gender
Diabetic status, time on dialysis
Neuroticism, private body consciousness, illness related physical impairment
Christensen et al, 1996b U.S. 
67 HD 14 PD
Age **, education, gender
Diabetic status*, type of dialysis, time on dialysis
Perceived health competence*, health locus of control
Christensen et al, 1997a U.S.
Correlation, hierarchical regression
Age, education, gender
Diabetic status, time on dialysis
Monitoring attentional style, trait anxiety, internal health locus of control, control appraisal, avoidant coping
Christensen et al, 1997b U.S.
Correlations, hierarchical regression
Age, education, gender
Diabetic status, time on dialysis
Cynical hostility*, health locus of control
Cummings et al, 1982 U.S.
Age*, gender, income, education
Time on dialysis, transplant history, regimen complexity*
Susceptibility, severity, benefits*+, barriers+, knowledge of purpose of regimen*, social support (family and friends), support from medical staff+, family problems+
Serum phosphorus Self report
70% (based on serum phosphorus)
Curtin et al, 1999 U.S.
Ethnicity###, age, gender, employment status, education
Cause of renal failure, no. comorbidities, time on dialysis
Electronic monitoring (used in analysis)
Overdosing/underdosing/missing more than 20% prescribed doses
73% (based on electronic monitoring)
Eitel et al, 1998 U.S.
40 HD 45 PD
Efficacy expectations**, effort attributions, self control
Serum phosphorus (used in analysis)
Gago et al, 2000 Spain
Gender, age, living arrangements
Cause of ESRD, time on dialysis
Hilbert, 1985 U.S.
Age, income, education, social class, religion, gender, significant other
No. times hospitalised, time on dialysis+
Directive guidance social support+, affection social support
Composite self report scale – adherence to medication, fluid and diet (used in analysis) Serum phosphorus
Horne et al, 2001 U.K.
Age+, gender, education
Duration of ESRD, time on dialysis, no. prescribed medicines
Beliefs about medication (concerns ++, perceived need, harm, overuse)
Those who reported sometimes, often or very often deliberately missing a dose of their medication.
Leggat et al, 1998 U.S.
Age***, ethnicity*, smoker*, gender, education, living arrangements
Time on dialysis, diabetic status, transplant history
Lin & Liang, 1997 China
Health locus of control+++, **
3 composite measures: Lab reports (including serum phosphorus)
Self report – fluid, diet and medication adherence
Nurses' assessment – fluid, diet and medication adherence
61% (based on serum phosphorus)
Moran et al, 1997 U.S.
Age, gender, education
Time on dialysis, diabetic status, transplant history**
Social support, conscientiousness
Morduchowicz et al, 1993 Israel
Multivariate and stepwise regression
Education ***, ethnicity*, gender, age, place of birth, religious observance, marital status, no. children, whether accompanied to session, economic status, living arrangements
Previous PD dialysis, time on dialysis
O'Brien, 1980 U.S.
ANOVA, correlations, regression
Age, gender, marital status++, ethnicity, education, occupation, type of household
Time on dialysis
Significant others' expectations regarding adherence+++
Composite self report scale – dialysis attendance, diet, fluid and medication
Reiss et al, 1986 U.S.
Family income, marital status, years married, family size, education
Problem solving (coordination and closure), family intelligence
Schlebusch & Levin, 1982 South Africa
25 HD or PD
Organicity (cortical dysfunction)$
Composite staff rating – including adherence to medication and diet
Schneider, 1992 U.S.
Age***, gender, ethnicity, education
Time on dialysis, frequency of physician contact
Health locus of control***
Sherwood, 1983 U.S.
Family understanding, family organisation*, supportive family**,+++
Serum phosphorus Composite self-report measure – diet, fluid and medication
Stamatakis et al, 1997 U.S.
Anova, chi-square, multiple regression
Age*, gender, ethnicity education, occupation, marital status
Type of dialysis, cause of ESRD, transplant history
Serum phosphorus Self report
Steidl et al, 1980 U.S.
Composite staff assessment – dialysis attendance/medication and diet adherence
Takaki et al, 2003 Japan
Correlations, multiple regression
Time on dialysis***
Tomasello et al. 2004 U.S.
129 HD 59 PD
Time on dialysis, diabetic status, tablet burden*
Reporting taking less than 80% medication as prescribed
38% (based on self report) 51% (based on serum phosphorus)
Tracy et al, 1987 U.S.
0 (starting dialysis)
Personality*, depression*, family environment
Composite measure – serum phosphorus and interdialytic weight
Vives et al, 1999 Spain
Mann Whitney, Wilcoxon, T-test
Duration of treatment
Health locus of control
Composite score based on serum phosphorus, serum potassium and interdialytic weight
Weed-Collins & Hogan, 1989 U.S.
Knowledge of phosphate binders, susceptibility, severity, benefits, barriers*
Wenerowicz et al, 1978 U.S.
Health locus of control *
Wiebe & Christensen, 1997 U.S.
Stepwise, hierarchical regression
Age, gender, education, marital status
Diabetic status, time on dialysis
Conscientiousness, susceptibility, severity, benefits, barriers
Prevalence of nonadherence
Only 13 studies reported rates of nonadherence to phosphate binding medication. Estimates of the percentage of nonadherent participants ranged from 22–74% (mean 51%). This variation can in part be attributed to differences in the way in which nonadherence was measured and defined, for example, the mean number of people classified as nonadherent when assessed through serum phosphorus levels was 58%, compared to 31% when assessed using self report measures.
These measurement issues are discussed in more detail under limitations of the studies reviewed.
Predictors of nonadherence
Six of the nine studies investigating the relationship between health beliefs and adherence to phosphate binding medication reported significant relationships. These beliefs were all related to patients' perceptions of medication (e.g. concerns about potential adverse effects of medication , perceived barriers to and benefits of taking medication [22, 26], perceptions of self efficacy with regard to taking the medication [16, 27] and perceptions of others' expectations regarding adherence ). In a recent review of adherence to medication across chronic illnesses, such beliefs were identified as important potentially modifiable predictors of nonaderence that could be addressed within interventions to facilitate adherence .
Four of five studies found a relationship between social support and adherence to phosphate binding medication. This included support of friends and family [13, 29, 30] and of renal staff . In addition, three of five studies exploring associations between family dynamics and adherence reported significant results. Family problems caused by the patient's illness , disorganisation and disagreements within the family  and lack of clear family structure  were associated with low adherence to phosphate binding medication. It is interesting that whilst marital status/living arrangements alone were not often associated with adherence, patients' perceptions of the actual support they received and the quality of their family relationships were more likely to be associated with adherence. This is consistent with findings in the broader social support literature that suggest that it is the quality rather than quantity of social support that is important in predicting mental and physical health outcomes .
Four of the eight studies exploring personality as a predictor of adherence to medication found significant results. Personality traits associated with nonadherence included low conscientiousness , high cynical hostility , and being expedient, venturesome, experimental and lacking self control .
Findings of studies looking at knowledge as a predictor of nonadherence were mixed. Two out of four studies found an association between knowledge of the purpose of the regimen and phosphate levels [20, 22]. However, the other two studies found no relationship between knowledge of treatment instructions and adherence to phosphate binding medication [26, 35]. Knowledge might be a prerequisite for adherence behaviour but the presence of knowledge alone may not bring about change in behaviour.
Methodological limitations of the studies reviewed
Several methodological limitations of the studies were noted. These related to the definition and measurement of nonadherence and the study design and sampling.
Adherence assessment methods
A variety of methods of assessing adherence were utilised in the studies, including tablet counts, electronic monitoring, patient self-report, health care professionals' reports and serum phosphorus levels. Each method has its own limitations, as discussed in a recent review of adherence, compliance and concordance . Serum phosphorus was the most frequently used indicator of phosphate binder adherence (79% studies). This can be problematic as it reflects not only adherence to phosphate binding medication but also adherence to diet restrictions and dialysis attendance. It has also been suggested that serum phosphorus levels can be affected by 'residual renal function, urine output, co-morbid illnesses, hypercatabolism, nutritional status, hormonal and acid base status, type and intensity of dialytic treatment' , highlighting the lack of specificity of this measure. Where studies used more than one method of measuring adherence, rates of nonadherence and predictors of nonadherence varied depending on the adherence measure used [3, 22, 29]. This makes it very difficult to accurately estimate the levels of nonadherence in the renal dialysis population.
Definitions of nonadherence
Definitions of nonadherence were inconsistent. Serum phosphorus levels that were considered acceptable ranged from 4.5 mg/dl  to 7.5 mg/dl  and this was reflected in the reported rates of nonadherence, with the study adopting the highest cut-off reporting the lowest rates of nonadherence (22%, ), and the study adopting the lowest cut-off reporting one of the highest rates of nonadherence (68%, ). Similarly, there was variation in the level of adherence that was considered acceptable in studies using self report measures of nonadherence, with definitions of nonadherence ranging from 'ever missing a dose'  to 'missing more than 20% of doses' . More research is necessary to determine the level of adherence to phosphate binding medication required to prevent negative health outcomes.
Composite measures of adherence
Eight studies combined adherence to phosphate binding medication with adherence to other parts of the treatment regimen (e.g. attendance at dialysis, adherence to diet and fluid restrictions) for the analysis [28–31, 34, 39–41]. People may have different levels of adherence for different parts of the treatment regimen and therefore adherence to the individual components should ideally be considered in isolation. Indeed, studies that did assess adherence to different parts of the regimen separately not only reported different levels of adherence to the different aspects of treatment but also found that different factors predicted adherence to different parts of the regimen [12–15, 18, 21, 22, 26, 27, 33, 35, 42–48].
Only three studies utilised a prospective design [14, 27, 28], with the remainder using a cross sectional study design. Whilst cross-sectional studies enable the identification of associations between variables, prospective studies are required to determine causal links between potential predictor variables and adherence.
Many studies had small sample sizes, with a third including less than 50 people and 6 studies (18%) reporting sample sizes of 25 or less. Only one study included a power calculation  and it is likely that many of the other studies would not have had the power to detect predictors of nonadherence. It is therefore possible that actual predictors of nonadherence remain undetected. Future research should ensure sample sizes are large enough for the analysis to identify significant predictors of nonadherence, should they exist.
Health care system bias
The vast majority of the studies were conducted in the United States of America (79%). It is possible that the health care system in the United States has unique characteristics that could influence adherence (e.g. prescription charges, private health insurance). It is therefore not possible to generalise the results to all health care systems and there is a need for further research outside of the United States.
Nonadherence to phosphate binding medication is a serious problem; studies report that 22–74% patients are nonadherent with their phosphate binding medication, with the variation attributable to differences in the definition and measurement of nonadherence.
Demographic and clinical factors are not consistently associated with nonadherence to phosphate binding medication, with the exception of age (older patients are more likely to be adherent). However issues such as regimen complexity, which are likely to be important determinants of adherence, have not been fully explored and should be considered in future research.
Across studies, psychosocial factors appear to be the most promising predictors of nonadherence, including patients' beliefs about their treatment and their perceived social support. However, limitations in research design and study power create the need for further methodologically sound studies to identify the key beliefs influencing nonadherence to phosphate binders as a basis for the development of interventions to facilitate motivation, informed choice and appropriate adherence.
This review was supported by an unrestricted educational grant from Shire Pharmaceuticals.
- United States Renal Data System: Annual Data Report. National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Disease. Bethesda. 1998Google Scholar
- Block AG, Hulbert-Shearon TE, Levin NW, Port FK: Association of serum phosphorus and Calcium × Phosphate product with mortality risk in chronic haemodialysis patients: a national study. Am J Kidney Dis. 1998, 31 (4): 607-617.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Tomasello S, Dhupar S, Sherman RA: Phosphate Binders, K/DOQI Guidelines, and Compliance: The Unfortunate Reality. Dialysis & Transplantation. 2004, 33 (5): 236-242.Google Scholar
- World Health Organization: Adherence to Long-term Therapies: Evidence for Action. World Health Organization. 2003Google Scholar
- Horne R, Weinman J, Barber N, Elliott RA, Morgan M: Concordance, adherence and compliance in medicine taking: a conceptual map and research priorities. National Co-ordinating Centre for NHS Service Delivery and Organisation NCCSDO, London. 2005Google Scholar
- Kripalani S, Yao X, Haynes RB: Interventions to enhance medication adherence in chronic medical conditions: a systematic review. Archives of internal medicine. 2007, 167 (6): 540-550. 10.1001/archinte.167.6.540.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Hoover H: Compliance in hemodialysis patients: a review of the literature. J Am Diet Assoc. 1989, 89 (7): 957-959.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Hailey B, Moss S: Compliance behaviour in patients undergoing haemodialysis: A review of the literature. Psychology, Health & Medicine. 2000, 5 (4): 395-406. 10.1080/713690222.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Richard CJ: Self-care management in adults undergoing hemodialysis. Nephrology Nursing Journal. 2006, 33 (4): 387-396.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Morgan L: A decade review: methods to improve adherence to the treatment regimen among hemodialysis patients. Nephrology Nursing Journal: Journal of the American Nephrology Nurses' Association. 2000, 27 (3): 299-304.Google Scholar
- Ricka R, Vanrenterghem Y, Evers GCM: Adequate self-care of dialysed patients: a review of the literature. Int J Nurs Stud. 2002, 39 (3): 329-339. 10.1016/S0020-7489(01)00024-4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Bame SI, Petersen N, Wray NP: Variation in hemodialysis patient compliance according to demographic characteristics. Soc Sci Med. 1993, 37 (8): 1035-1043. 10.1016/0277-9536(93)90438-A.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Boyer CB, Friend R, Chlouverakis G, Kaloyanides G: Social support and demographic factors influencing compliance of hemodialysis patients. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 1990, 20 (22, Pt 2): 1902-1918. 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1990.tb01517.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Christensen AJ, Smith TW, Turner CW, Cundick KE: Patient adherence and adjustment in renal dialysis: a person × treatment interactive approach. Journal of Behavioral Medicine. 1994, 17 (6): 549-566. 10.1007/BF01857597.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Christensen AJ, Smith TW: Personality and patient adherence: correlates of the five-factor model in renal dialysis. J Behav Med. 1995, 18 (3): 305-313. 10.1007/BF01857875.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Christensen AJ, Wiebe JS, Benotsch EG, Lawton WJ: Perceived health competence, health locus of control, and patient adherence in renal dialysis. Cognitive Therapy and Research. 1996, 20 (4): 411-421. 10.1007/BF02228042.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Horne R, Sumner S, Jubraj B, Weinman J, Frost S: Haemodialysis patients' beliefs about treatment: Implications for adherence to medication and fluid-diet restrictions. International Journal of Pharmacy Practice. 2001, 9 (3): 169-175.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Leggat JE, Orzol SM, Hulbert-Shearon TE, Golper TA, Jones CA, Held PJ, Port FK: Noncompliance in hemodialysis: predictors and survival analysis. Am J Kidney Dis. 1998, 32 (1): 139-145.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Schneider B: Multidimensional health locus of control as partial predictor of serum phosphorus in chronic hemodialysis. Psychol Rep. 1992, 70 (3 Pt 2): 1171-1174. 10.2466/PR0.70.4.1171-1174.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Stamatakis MK, Pecora PG, Gunel E: Factors influencing adherence in chronic dialysis patients with hyperphosphatemia. Journal of Renal Nutrition. 1997, 7 (3): 144-148.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Takaki J, Nishi T, Shimoyama H, Inada T, Matsuyama N, Sasaki T, Kumano H, Kuboki T: Associations and interactions of age, sex, and duration of hemodialysis with compliance in uremic patients. Dialysis & Transplantation. 2003, 32 (1): 12-17.Google Scholar
- Cummings KM, Becker MH, Kirscht JP, Levin NW: Psychosocial factors affecting adherence to medical regiments in a group of hemodialysis patients. Med Care. 1982, 20 (6): 567-580. 10.1097/00005650-198206000-00003.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Claxton AJ, Cramer J, Pierce C: A systematic review of the associations between dose regimens and medication compliance. Clinical Therapeutics. 2001, 23 (8): 1296-1310. 10.1016/S0149-2918(01)80109-0.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Karamanidou C, Wienman J, Horne R: A qualitative in-depth study of barriers to adherence to phosphate-binding medication in a small cohort of haemodialysis patients. Poster presentation at the 2007 World Congress of Nephrology, April 21–25 2007. 2007, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil,Google Scholar
- Riley S: Examining patient perceptions of phophate binders. British Journal of Renal Medicine. 2007, 12 (1): 19-21.Google Scholar
- Weed-Collins M, Hogan R: Knowledge and health beliefs regarding phosphate-binding medication in predicting compliance. Anna Journal. 1989, 16 (4): 278-282.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Eitel P, Friend R, Griffin KW, Wadhwa NK: Cognitive control and consistency in compliance. Psychology & Health. 1998, 13 (6): 953-973. 10.1080/08870449808407442.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- O'Brien ME: Hemodialysis regimen compliance and social environment: a panel analysis. Nurs Res. 1980, 29 (4): 250-255.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Hilbert G: An investigation of the relationship between social support and compliance of hemodialysis patients. ANNA Journal. 1985, 12 (2): 133-136.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Sherwood RJ: Compliance behavior of hemodialysis patients and the role of the family. Family Systems Medicine. 1983, 1 (2): 60-72.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Steidl JH, Finkelstein OF, Wexler JP, Feigenbaum H, Kitsen J, Kliger AS, Quinlan DM: Medical condition, adherence to treatment regimens, and family functioning. Their interactions in patients receiving long-term dialysis treatment. Archives of General Psychiatry. 1980, 37 (9): 1025-1027.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- VanderVoort D: Quality of social support in mental and physical health. Current Psychology. 1999, 18 (2): 205-222. 10.1007/s12144-999-1029-8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Christensen AJ, Wiebe JS, Lawton WJ: Cynical hostility, powerful others control expectancies, and patient adherence in hemodialysis. Psychosom Med. 1997, 59 (3): 307-312.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Schlebusch L, Levin A: Can poor compliance in hemodialysis patients be predicted?. Dialysis & Transplantation. 1982, 11 (7): 601-604.Google Scholar
- Gago C, Gruss E, GÃlzalez S, Marco B, FernÃndez J, Jarriz A, Martinez S, GÃnzalez A, GÃlvez C, Andrea C, et al: Compliance of haemodialysis patients with prescribed medication. EDTNA/ERCA Journal of Renal Care. 2000, 26 (4): 4-6.Google Scholar
- Kaveh K, Kimmel PL: Compliance in hemodialysis patients: Multidimensional measurements in search of a gold standard. Am J Kidney Dis. 2001, 37: 244-266.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Wenerowicz WJ, Riskind JH, Jenkins PG: Locus of control and degree of compliance in hemodialysis patients. J Dial. 1978, 2 (5–6): 495-505.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Blanchard R, Berger W, Bailie GR, Eisele G: Knowledge of hemodialysis and CAPD patients about their prescribed medicines. Clinical Nephrology. 1990, 34 (4): 173-178.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Lin CC, Liang CC: The relationship between health locus of control and compliance of hemodialysis patients. Kaohsiung J Med Sci. 1997, 13 (4): 243-254.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Tracy HM, Green C, McCleary J: Noncompliance in hemodialysis patients as measured with the MBHI. Psychology & Health. 1987, 1 (4): 411-423. 10.1080/08870448708400340.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Vives T, Pujolar N, Junyent E, Flores I, Cordovilla L, Izquierdo R: Adherence to treatment and personality in renal failure. EDTNA/ERCA Journal of Renal Care. 1999, 25 (3): 13-14.Google Scholar
- Betts DK, Crotty GD: Response to illness and compliance of long-term hemodialysis patients. Anna J. 1988, 15 (2): 96-99.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Christensen AJ, Moran PJ, Lawton WJ, Stallman D, Voigts AL: Monitoring attentional style and medical regimen adherence in hemodialysis patients. Health Psychol. 1997, 16 (3): 256-262. 10.1037/0278-6126.96.36.1996.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Christensen AJ, Wiebe JS, Edwards DL, Michels JD, Lawton WJ: Body consciousness, illness-related impairment, and patient adherence in hemodialysis. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1996, 64 (1): 147-152. 10.1037/0022-006X.64.1.147.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Moran PJ, Christensen AJ, Lawton WJ: Social support and conscientiousness in hemodialysis adherence. Ann Behav Med. 1997, 19 (4): 333-338.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Morduchowicz G, Sulkes J, Aizic S, Gabbay U, Winkler J, Boner G: Compliance in hemodialysis patients: a multivariate regression analysis. Nephron. 1993, 64 (3): 365-368.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Reiss D, Gonzalez S, Kramer N: Family process, chronic illness, and death: On the weakness of strong bonds. Archives of General Psychiatry. 1986, 43 (8): 795-804.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Wiebe JS, Christensen AJ: Health beliefs, personality, and adherence in hemodialysis patients: an interactional perspective. Ann Behav Med. 1997, 19 (1): 30-35.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Curtin RB, Svarstad BL, Keller TH: Hemodialysis patients' noncompliance with oral medications. Anna Journal. 1999, 26 (3): 307-316. discussion 317PubMedGoogle Scholar
- The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2369/9/2/prepub
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.