| Title |
Nonadherence in type 2 diabetes: practical considerations for interpreting the literature
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Patient preference and adherence, March 2013
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ppa.s30613 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
David F Blackburn, Jaris Swidrovich, Mark Lemstra |
| Abstract |
The rising prevalence of type 2 diabetes poses a serious threat to human health and the viability of many health care systems around the world. Although several prescription medications can play a vital role in controlling symptoms and preventing complications, non-adherence to these therapies is highly prevalent and has been linked to increases in morbidity, mortality, and health care costs. Although a vast array of significant adherence predictors has been identified, the ability to explain or predict non-adherence with known risk-factors remains poor. Further, the definitions, outcomes, and various measures used in the non-adherence literature can be misleading for the unfamiliar reviewer. In this narrative review, a practical overview of important considerations for interpreting adherence endpoints and measures is discussed. Also, an organizational framework is proposed to consider published adherence interventions. This framework may allow for a unique appreciation into areas of limited knowledge and thus highlights targets for future research. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 236 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 1 | <1% |
| Turkey | 1 | <1% |
| Ethiopia | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 233 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 43 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 33 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 30 | 13% |
| Researcher | 22 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 17 | 7% |
| Other | 42 | 18% |
| Unknown | 49 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 83 | 35% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 24 | 10% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 19 | 8% |
| Psychology | 14 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 10 | 4% |
| Other | 34 | 14% |
| Unknown | 52 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 17 March 2013.
All research outputs
#16,188,873
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#904
of 1,733 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#122,495
of 206,591 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#12
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,733 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 206,591 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.