↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Examining patient preferences in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis using a discrete-choice approach

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
patent
5 patents
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
64 Mendeley
Title
Examining patient preferences in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis using a discrete-choice approach
Published in
Patient preference and adherence, November 2016
DOI 10.2147/ppa.s117774
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rieke Alten, Klaus Krüger, Julian Rellecke, Julia Schiffner-Rohe, Olaf Behmer, Guido Schiffhorst, Hans-Dieter Nolting

Abstract

Biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) used in second-line treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are administered parenterally. However, so-called targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs) - developed more recently - offer alternative (ie, oral) administration forms in second-line treatment. Since bDMARDs and tsDMARDs can be regarded as equal in terms of efficacy, the present study examines whether such characteristics as route of administration drive RA patients' treatment choice. This may ultimately suggest superiority of some second-line DMARDs over equally effective options, at least according to RA-patient preferences. The current study assessed the importance of oral administration among other treatment characteristics differing between available second-line DMARDs for RA patients' preferences using a discrete-choice experiment (DCE). The DCE involved scenarios of three hypothetical treatment options in a d-efficient design with varying levels of key attributes (route and frequency of administration, time till onset of drug effect, combination therapy, possible side effects), as defined by focus groups. Further patient characteristics were recorded by an accompanying questionnaire. In the DCE, patients were asked to choose best and worst options (best-worst scaling). Results were analyzed by count analysis and adjusted regression analysis. A total of 1,588 subjects completed the DCE and were eligible for final analyses. Across all characteristics included in the DCE, "oral administration" was most desired and "intravenous infusion" was most strongly rejected. This was followed by "no combination with methotrexate" being strongly preferred and "intake every 1-2 weeks" being strongly rejected. On average, levels of route of administration showed strongest influences on patients' decisions in post hoc bootstrapping analysis. According to the results, an oral DMARD that does not have to be combined with methotrexate and is not administered (only) every 1-2 weeks appears a highly favorable treatment option for patients with RA. DMARDs meeting these preferences may increase compliance and adherence in RA treatment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 64 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 17%
Other 10 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 14%
Student > Master 8 13%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 14 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 23%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 13 20%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 11 17%
Unknown 16 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 10 October 2023.
All research outputs
#7,778,071
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#553
of 1,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#107,570
of 317,794 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#17
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 317,794 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 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 60% of its contemporaries.