title: Compliance and noncompliance in neuroscience.
abstract: Among the responses to this month's question, the most common strategy for motivating compliance is providing information. This finding is also supported with the example from Australia, where stoke sufferers are highly compliant with any intervention aimed at prevention of future strokes. In this case, the high level of compliance and (probably) motivation can be explained by the fact that stroke is potentially fatal and highly disabling. Other important issues also were identified in the responses: (a) patients' trust and belief in healthcare professionals in terms of providing information and motivation, and (b) a lack of motivation in some patients who simply do not want to comply and prefer a certain level of seizure activity or other impairments and disabilities over the potential side effects of the treatment. This raises another question that goes beyond the concept of compliance and noncompliance: How does the system comply to the patient? I will leave this topic open, and I welcome comments for a future round of discussion here at Global Views.
authors.forename: P
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Hagell
mesh_terms: D001315:Australia; D004827:Epilepsy / Q000523:psychology* / Q000628:therapy*; D006801:Humans; D009042:Motivation; D009488:Neurosciences; D010349:Patient Compliance / Q000523:psychology* / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D010353:Patient Education as Topic; D013041:Specialties, Nursing; D013548:Sweden; D016312:Treatment Refusal / Q000523:psychology* / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D006113:United Kingdom; D014481:United States