If medication is seen as a means to an end (the end being defined by the consumer with the provider), then adherence to treatment—the means to the end—makes sense. In other words, if the only thing I care about—the only thing I can allow myself to hope for or think about—is my dog, then the provider better be setting up a treatment plan that allows me to give my dog a better life. And, by the way, taking a medication is one means to the end of giving my dog a better life...because when I can do that, I have more energy to take her for walks ... I'm more likely to remember to take her to the vet...I'll have money from a job to buy her food...and so on.

Let me say this again. The point of treatment is to give consumers a better life—a life we define based on what we care about. Medication is a means to an end—our better life. Our conversations with our doctor must address the end we're seeking in terms of that better life. It should focus on medication as a means to that end, not the end in and of itself. If that happens, then I believe "adherence to the medication" also happens.

I'm tired of listening to those providers who blame consumers for not "complying with medication." They need to understand what we need: real and meaningful education so that we understand our treatment (instead of a minute or two of a 12-minute session) as well as measurement-based care that allows both parties to see some real improvement ... i.e., treatment that's focused on our life rather than our medication. And, as the World Health Organization suggests, we need both providers and the health care system to consider the roles they themselves play in the "adherence problem" ... and do something about them.

What are some ways you think providers can provide more real and meaningful education to consumers?