↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Adherence to lipid-lowering treatment: the patient perspective

Overview of attention for article published in Patient preference and adherence, November 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
48 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
93 Mendeley
Title
Adherence to lipid-lowering treatment: the patient perspective
Published in
Patient preference and adherence, November 2012
DOI 10.2147/ppa.s29092
Pubmed ID
Authors

Manuela Casula, Elena Tragni, Alberico Luigi Catapano

Abstract

Despite the widespread prescription of highly effective lipid-lowering medications, such as the HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins), a large portion of the population has lipid levels higher than the recommended goals. Treatment failures have been attributed to a variety of causes but the most important is likely to be poor adherence to therapy in the form of irregular or interrupted intake and the high frequency of discontinuation or lack of persistence. Adherence is a multidimensional phenomenon determined by the interplay of patient factors, physician factors, and health care system factors. Patients' knowledge and beliefs about their illness, motivation to manage it, confidence in their ability to engage in illness-management behaviors, and expectations regarding the outcome of treatment and the consequences of poor adherence interact to influence adherence behavior. Patient-related factors account for the largest incremental explanatory power in predicting adherence. This article provides an overview of this critical issue, focusing on patient role in determining adherence level to lipid-lowering therapy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 91 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 19%
Student > Master 16 17%
Student > Bachelor 11 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 11%
Other 5 5%
Other 9 10%
Unknown 24 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 18%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 12 13%
Social Sciences 9 10%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 4%
Other 17 18%
Unknown 30 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 June 2018.
All research outputs
#15,197,484
of 25,806,080 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#782
of 1,769 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#117,503
of 203,228 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#11
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,806,080 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,769 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 203,228 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.