When can cancer patient treatment nonadherence be considered intentional or unintentional? A scoping review

BACKGROUND: Treatment nonadherence in cancer patients remains high with most interventions having had limited success. Most studies omit the multi-factorial aspects of treatment adherence and refer to medication adherence. The behaviour is rarely defined as intentional or unintentional. AIM: The aim of this Scoping Review is to increase understanding of modifiable factors in treatment nonadherence through the relationships that physicians have with their patients. This knowledge can help define when treatment nonadherence is intentional or unintentional and can assist in predicting cancer patients at risk of nonadherence and in intervention design. The scoping review provides the basis for method triangulation in two subsequent qualitative studies: 1. Sentiment analysis of online cancer support groups in relation to treatment nonadherence; 2. A qualitative validation survey to refute / or validate claims from this scoping review. Thereafter, framework development for a future (cancer patient) online peer support intervention. METHODS: A Scoping Review was performed to identify peer reviewed studies that concern treatment / medication nonadherence in cancer patients—published between 2000 to 2021 (and partial 2022). The review was registered in the Prospero database CRD42020210340 and follows the PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Searches. The principles of meta-ethnography are used in a synthesis of qualitative findings that preserve the context of primary data. An aim of meta-ethnography is to identify common and refuted themes across studies. This is not a mixed methods study, but due to a limited qualitativevidence base and to broaden findings, the qualitative elements (author interpretations) found within relevant quantitative studies have been included. RESULTS: Of 7510 articles identified, 240 full texts were reviewed with 35 included. These comprise 15 qualitative and 20 quantitative studies. One major theme, that embraces 6 sub themes has emerged: ‘Physician factors can influence patient factors in treatment nonadherence’. The six (6) subthemes are: 1. Suboptimal Communication; 2. The concept of Information differs between Patient and Physician; 3.Inadequate time. 4. The need for Treatment Concordance is vague or missing from concepts; 5. The importance of Trust in the physician / patient relationship is understated in papers; 6. Treatment concordance as a concept is rarely defined and largely missing from studies. LINE OF ARGUMENT WAS DRAWN: Treatment (or medication) nonadherence that is intentional or unintentional is often attributed to patient factors—with far less attention to the potential influence of physician communication factors. The differentation between intentional or unintentional nonadherence is missing from most qualitative and quantitative studies. The holistic inter-dimensional / multi-factorial concept of ‘treatment adherence’ receives scant attention. The main focus is on medication adherence / nonadherence in the singular context. Nonadherence that is unintentional is not necessarily passive behaviour and may overlap with intentional nonadherence. The absence of treatment concordance is a barrier to treatment adherence and is rarely articulated or defined in studies. CONCLUSION: This review demonstrates how cancer patient treatment nonadherence is often a shared outcome. An equal focus on physican and patient factors can increase understanding of the two main types of nonadherence (intentional or unintentional). This differentation should help improve the fundamentals of intervention design.