Treatment non-adherence in teenage and young adult patients with cancer.

Adhering to treatment can be a significant issue for many patients diagnosed with chronic health conditions and this has been reported to be greater during the adolescent years. However, little is known about treatment adherence in teenage and young adult (TYA) patients with cancer. To increase awareness of the adherence challenges faced by these patients, we have reviewed the published work. The available evidence suggests that a substantial proportion of TYA patients with cancer do have difficulties, with reports that up to 63% of patients do not adhere to their treatment regimens. However, with inconsistent findings across studies, the true extent of non-adherence for these young patients is still unclear. Furthermore, it is apparent that there are many components of the cancer treatment regimen that have yet to be assessed in relation to patient adherence. Factors that have been shown to affect treatment adherence in TYA patients include patient emotional functioning (depression and self-esteem), patient health beliefs (perceived illness severity and vulnerability), and family environment (parental support and parent-child concordance). Strategies that foster greater patient adherence are also identified. These strategies are multifactorial, targeting not only the patient, but the health professional, family, and treatment regimen. This review highlights the lack of interventional studies addressing treatment adherence in TYA patients with cancer, with only one such intervention being identified: a video game intervention focusing on behavioural issues related to cancer treatment and care. Methodological issues in measuring adherence are addressed and suggestions for improving the design of future adherence studies highlighted, of which there is a great need.

Treatment non-adherence in teenage and young adult cancer patients: a preliminary study of patient perceptions.

OBJECTIVES: Non-adherence (NA) by adolescents receiving cancer treatment is believed to be a major problem. However, adequate measures of NA have not been developed. The purpose of this study was to (1) assess the internal reliability of a new scale reflecting low-risk NA behaviours, (2) examine whether the scores on this scale were associated with high-risk NA behaviours and (3) assess the relationship between NA behaviours and patient attitudes towards stopping treatment. METHODS: Thirty-three patients (16-24 years) with solid tumours reported on their previous adherence with treatment. Low-risk NA behaviours were assessed on a 0-40 scale derived from the sum of 10 items. High-risk NA behaviours and attitudes towards stopping treatment were assessed by questions with yes/no response options. RESULTS: Internal reliability of the low-risk NA scale was alpha=0.73. Patients not seeking help for pyrexia had higher total low-risk NA scores than those who sought help (mean 7.4, SD 5.3 vs mean 3.5, SD 3.6, t=2.1, p=0.03). There was also a trend for individuals who ignored pyrexia to be more likely to have contemplated stopping treatment than those who sought medical assistance (Fisher's Exact=0.09). CONCLUSIONS: A scale reflecting low-risk NA behaviour had good internal reliability and was associated with not seeking help when pyrexic. Ignoring a temperature was also associated with contemplating stopping treatment. We are now conducting a prospective study using the measure to assess validity against a range of information regarding NA.