Due to numerous studies results, today we can conclude with certainty that the established medical practice shows certain fallacies regarding the relationship between the doctor and the patient, since the needs and expectations of the latter are not met in the consultation process. Striving for objectivity and emotional distance on the doctor's behalf can lead to the patient not being heard during the consultations, which in turn leads to the loss of an important range of information, including the patient's emotions, ideas, functional disorders caused by the disease, and his expectations of the doctor. The consequence thereof is a disturbed doctor-patient relationship, and the reduced cooperation brings the patient into a state of dissatisfaction and skews his experience of the disease. Consequently, the possibility of a problematic outcome of the disease increases, especially if we take into consideration that in such cases patients are more likely not to follow the doctor's orders and not to adhere to the recommended treatment. Adherence to the recommended treatment of cardiovascular (CV) diseases is especially low, which is a noted and notable public health issue when caring for such patients. Since the patient himself decides on most of the daily issues related to the control of CV risk factors, understanding his experience of the disease and seeing it as his response to the disease is of paramount importance. It is therefore highly important to identify the patient-related factors that influence the control of CV risk factors and of the disease itself, all with the purpose of improving the possible outcome of the treatment. The doctors themselves are often limited when it comes to what they can and cannot do about a certain disease; however, by including the aforementioned components, their action range is expanded. Therefore derives the need to establish a dialogue on equal footing, with an emphasis on mutual respect, acceptance, understanding, and agreement on the treatment process.