We have just wrapped up two fascinating projects - one in osteoporosis, the other in type 2 diabetes. Both are perfect examples of 'silent diseases': conditions that often progress unnoticed until substantial, sometimes irreversible, damage has occurred. Yet, despite the differences between these therapeutic areas, both led us back to the same deceptively simple, and consistently elusive question: 'Are patients really taking their medications?'
When you ask patients, the answer is usually enthusiastic: “Yes, of course. I take it every day. It’s part of my routine.” Ask healthcare professionals, and you’ll hear something very different: “They stop after a few months.” “They only take it when they feel symptoms.” “It’s one of the biggest challenges in managing treatment long-term.”
This disconnect is not just a one-off. It points to a bigger problem in how we manage chronic diseases.
Why is adherence still an issue?
Despite decades of focus, non-adherence remains one of the most stubborn barriers to successful treatment. We often treat it as a matter of compliance, discipline, or awareness, but the reality is far more complex.
Patients don’t stop taking their medication because they’re careless or disinterested. They stop for a variety of deeply human, often overlapping reasons.
Some simply forget, especially when juggling multiple prescriptions and daily responsibilities. Others feel better after a few weeks or months and assume the treatment has done its job. Some face financial barriers or find themselves navigating inconsistent pharmacy supplies or limited insurance coverage. And then there is fatigue: patients who silently disengage because they are overwhelmed, burned out, or unsure whether the medication is truly helping.
We also see issues that are less visible but just as impactful: a lack of social support, underlying mental health challenges, missed appointments, or prior negative experiences with healthcare professionals. In each case, the result is the same: treatment is paused, adjusted, or abandoned.
The adherence paradox in “Invisible” conditions
In our osteoporosis research, the pattern was familiar. Patients often equated no pain with no problem. Some openly admitted they took their medication “only when they remembered”, not because they were rebelling against medical advice, but because the consequences didn’t feel urgent.
In our diabetes study, a similar logic applied. Patients who saw stable readings began to relax. Some stopped checking their blood sugar altogether. “I know how my body feels,” one said, confident that intuition could replace measurement. But this often leads patients to adjust their insulin doses based on feeling rather than data, which can be risky.
In both cases, the underlying story was the same: patients were not lying. They genuinely believed they were doing enough.
A widespread challenge across therapeutic areas
These are not certainly isolated stories. They reflect a much broader trend across healthcare, particularly in conditions where symptoms are absent or intermittent.
• In hypertension, only around 51% of patients remain adherent to long-term treatment [EMC, 2023 – https://www.emc.id/en/care-plus/must-know-beware-of-asymptomatic-hypertension-and-how-to-treat-it].
• In asthma, adherence to inhaled therapies often falls below 50%, driven by technique difficulties, regimen complexity, or denial of the condition [PMC, 2011 – https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3191684/].
• In mental health, adherence rates are among the lowest: 56% for schizophrenia, 50% for major depressive disorder, and just 44% for bipolar disorder [PMC, 2017 – https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/5418936/].
In contrast, when the stakes feel immediate, the pattern shifts:
• In HIV, adherence to antiretroviral therapy (ART) remains a challenge but rates average around 70–80% globally [WHO, 2023 – https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/hiv-aids].
• In multiple sclerosis, one study showed 77.2% adherence at one year - which is far better than adherence seen in conditions like rheumatoid arthritis, epilepsy, or Parkinson’s disease [AJMC, 2021 – https://www.ajmc.com/view/comparison-of-adherence-across-chronic-conditions].
Urgency, visibility, and structured support systems make a measurable difference.
Supporting adherence - what works and what doesn’t
We often get involved with helping pharmaceutical companies finding good solutions to support patient adherence and we have heard all sorts of feedback. Digital tools, apps, reminders, and smart pillboxes can ease the burden of remembering. Motivational interviewing where HCPs shift from instructing to exploring beliefs opens space for honest dialogue. Peer stories resonate in a way clinical facts rarely do. And simplifying regimens—through weekly dosing, fixed-dose combinations, or home delivery can reduce friction.
As AI continues to reshape healthcare, adherence is becoming a prime target for automation and optimization. Predictive algorithms, chatbot reminders, and even AI-generated nudges promise better outcomes at scale. These tools can help flag patients at risk of dropping off and optimize when and how reminders are delivered.
Also, behavioral science is also making a resurgence, this time with a digital twist. There’s growing momentum around personalized nudging, adaptive messaging, and gamified self-management, rooted in behavioral models and patient segmentation. When done well, these approaches can create more relevant, timely, and psychologically informed touch-points.
On the other hand, let’s be honest: many traditional efforts may still fall flat according to the feedback we receive from both physicians and patients. Educational materials often feel generic. Scare tactics may prompt action but not for long. And subtle blame, even unintended, may push patients away rather than pulling them closer.
So where do we go from here?
We need to stop treating adherence as a binary outcome and start recognizing it as a complex behavior influenced by belief, context, and experience.
Let’s move from asking “Are patients adherent?” to asking a different set of questions: “Do they believe in the treatment?” “Do they feel the benefits - or only the burden?” “Does the treatment regimen fit their life - or complicate it?"