Authority cues and metacognitive miscalibration in linguistic judgment: evidence from an English-Chinese revision paradigm.

Arterial hypertension is one of the main modifiable causes of premature death worldwide []. The positive impact of controlled blood pressure (BP) in reducing cardiovascular events and target-organ damage is well established []. However, poor adherence to antihypertensive treatment remains a major barrier to treatment success. Assessing adherence and understanding the factors that limit its effectiveness continue to be significant challenges for healthcare professionals. Adherence to antihypertensive medication is inadequate in most countries [], with nonadherence rates ranging from 8.2% to 74.9%, depending on the assessment method used []. Evaluating treatment adherence in hypertension is not a simple task, and this heterogeneity in prevalence estimates reflects the complexity of the process. There are various methods of assessment and different cutoff points, and to date, no gold standard method exists that encompasses the multiple dimensions involved in the adherence process. Assessment of treatment adherence can be performed using direct or indirect methods. Direct assessment includes biological analysis of blood or urine and supervised medication intake, whereas indirect assessment may involve appointment attendance, pill counts, patient self-report, physician perception, or the use of validated self-report instruments []. Indirect methods, particularly those using self-report instruments, are the most commonly employed in clinical practice. However, biological analysis is increasingly recommended as a more objective method, although it also presents important limitations [].