↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Factors related to intentional and unintentional medication nonadherence in elderly patients with hypertension in rural community

Overview of attention for article published in Patient preference and adherence, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#12 of 1,757)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
775 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
102 Mendeley
Title
Factors related to intentional and unintentional medication nonadherence in elderly patients with hypertension in rural community
Published in
Patient preference and adherence, September 2016
DOI 10.2147/ppa.s114529
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sang Geun Bae, Sin Kam, Ki Soo Park, Keon-Yeop Kim, Nam-Soo Hong, Ki-Su Kim, Yu-mi Lee, Won Kee Lee, Michael Sung Pil Choe

Abstract

We assessed medication nonadherence, categorized as intentional or unintentional, and related factors in elderly patients with hypertension, correlating the data with measurement of blood pressure as the final target of medication adherence and other possible influencing factors, such as lifestyle. Subjects were aged ≥65 years, resided in a rural area, and were taking antihypertensive drugs. The survey was conducted in July 2014. Participants were divided into the following three groups: "Adherence", "Unintentional nonadherence", and "Intentional nonadherence". Individual cognitive components, such as necessity and concern as well as self-efficacy and other related factors, were compared according to adherence groups. The interrelationships between those factors and nonadherence were tested using structural equation modeling analysis. Of the 401 subjects, 182 (45.6%) were in the adherence group, 107 (26.7%) in the unintentional nonadherence group, and 112 (27.9%) in the intentional nonadherence group. Necessity and self-efficacy were found to have a significant direct influence on unintentional nonadherence behaviors (necessity β=-0.171, P=0.019; self-efficacy β=-0.433, P<0.001); concern was not statistically significant (β=-0.009, P=0.909). Necessity was found to have significant direct and indirect impact on intentional nonadherence (direct β=-0.275, P=0.002; indirect β=-0.113, P=0.036). Self-efficacy had no significant direct effect on intentional nonadherence though it had the only significant indirect effect on intentional nonadherence (direct β=-0.055, P=0.515; indirect β=-0.286, P<0.001). Concern had no significant influence on intentional or on unintentional nonadherence (direct β=0.132 0.132, P=0.151; indirect β=-0.006, P=0.909). Unintentional nonadherence should be regularly monitored and managed because of its potential prognostic significance. Interventions addressing cognitive factors, such as beliefs about medicine or self-efficacy, are relatively difficult to implement, but are essential to improve medication adherence.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 775 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 102 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 102 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 18%
Student > Bachelor 15 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 13%
Student > Postgraduate 7 7%
Researcher 5 5%
Other 12 12%
Unknown 32 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 21%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 18 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 15%
Psychology 6 6%
Computer Science 2 2%
Other 8 8%
Unknown 32 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 175. 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 03 October 2016.
All research outputs
#229,733
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#12
of 1,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,540
of 348,359 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#2
of 75 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,757 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 348,359 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 75 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.