Table 1 Number of experts1 agreeing with each meta-review proposition and the priority scores assigned by 18 of the 20 participating experts listed from high to low
| Â | Meta-review propositions | Agree N | Partly agree N | Disagree N | Priority score2 Mean (sd) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Focus on simple interventions workable and feasible in (busy) clinical practice | 12 | 5 | 0 | 2.7 (1.2) |
2 | Progress in adherence theories is to be expected from conjoint efforts of medical, pharmaceutical, social and technical scientists | 11 | 5 | 1 | 3.29 (1.8) |
3 | Patient groups should (help to) develop adherence interventions | 16 | 0 | 0 | 3.35 (1.5) |
4 | Adherence interventions should be limited solely to non-adherent patients | 2 | 6 | 10 | 3.35 (1.9) |
5 | Current adherence theories are more successful in explaining than in improving adherence: theory development should focus on improving adherence | 5 | 4 | 8 | 3.65 (1.8) |
6 | To improve adherence, changing the situation is more promising than changing the patient | 4 | 12 | 2 | 4.5 (1.5) |