Adherence to Treatment Among Economically Disadvantaged Patients with Panic Disorder

Published in: Psychiatric Services, v. 57, no. 12, Dec. 2006, p. 1745-1750

by Snigdha Mukherjee, Greer Sullivan, Dana Perry, Bobby Verdugo, Adrienne Means-Christensen, Trevor J. Schraufnagel, Cathy D. Sherbourne, Murray Stein, Michelle G. Craske, Peter Roy-Byrne

Read More

Access further information on this document at

This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine the feelings of disadvantaged patients about and experiences of treatment for anxiety disorders in primary care settings. METHODS: The patients had participated in the Collaborative Care for Anxiety and Panic study, which tested the effectiveness of an intervention to help primary care providers treat panic disorder. The treatment comprised cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) combined with pharmacotherapy administered by primary care physicians with the expert advice of a psychiatrist. Post hoc semistructured interviews were conducted with 21 intervention participants who were classified according to adherence or nonadherence to treatment. The interview focused on reactions to CBT; reactions to the different features of the intervention, such as therapy sessions, demonstration videotapes, exercises, and a workbook; and comfort with the therapist. Two members of the research team independently coded, analyzed, and interpreted the data. RESULTS: Three themes emerged: information was empowering and reduced the sense of isolation experienced by participants, participants engaged in a dynamic and iterative personalized assessment of the intervention, and barriers to adherence were predominantly logistical. CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate that the extent to which patients chose to remain in treatment and follow treatment recommendations was rarely an all-or-nothing phenomenon. In a disadvantaged population such decisions seem to be influenced by the beliefs of the patient about what will and will not be effective in his or her individual case, an ongoing self-assessment of well-being, and the logistical barriers that come into play.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation External publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

Our mission to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behavior. To help ensure our research and analysis are rigorous, objective, and nonpartisan, we subject our research publications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance process; avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conflicts of interest through staff training, project screening, and a policy of mandatory disclosure; and pursue transparency in our research engagements through our commitment to the open publication of our research findings and recommendations, disclosure of the source of funding of published research, and policies to ensure intellectual independence. For more information, visit

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.