These factors can cover a very broad range of psychosocial factors. For example, depending on the disease category, our experience,
consistent with the literature on cognitive science, suggests that the value proposition of adherence may not be that strong
when weighed directly against the value proposition of the alternative, which is non-adherence. And self-efficacy, a phenomenon
that has featured heavily in clinical behavior modification programs for decades, may well be a better bet than a copay assistance
program. These causal psychosocial factors provide a firm strategic and scientific platform for tailored interventions. Furthermore,
with each new causal factor incorporated into the design, the opportunity for more ROI increases.
This article is not intended to specify a list of rank-ordered factors and their relative predictive power towards adherence;
rather it is intended to provide an argument for pursuing a scientific adherence strategy. Knowing that these causal factors
exist, and that they are fundamental as a foundation for your adherence strategy, is the lesson for today.
So take heart in knowing that scientific progress in the adherence space is being made:
» Yes, there are underlying cognitive factors behind the decision;
» Yes, these factors can be scientifically constructed;
» Yes, there are mathematical maps of adherence
» Yes, they provide a critical tool for brand ma;nagers to effectively design and execute interventions; and finally
» Yes, they provide a framework for CFOs to assess ROI and determine appropriate investment in adherence.
In my final column, we will review some principles of adherence from the scientific perspective, such that brand teams will
be able to discern the difference between what looks and feels like a good investment and what truly constitutes a scientific
business model to managing the adherence problem.
Andrea LaFountain is CEO of Mind Field Solutions. She can be reached at email@example.com