↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

The Australasian Hepatology Association consensus guidelines for the provision of adherence support to patients with hepatitis C on direct acting antivirals

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 Mendeley
Title
The Australasian Hepatology Association consensus guidelines for the provision of adherence support to patients with hepatitis C on direct acting antivirals
Published in
Patient preference and adherence, December 2016
DOI 10.2147/ppa.s117757
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jacqueline Richmond, Suzanne Sheppard-Law, Susan Mason, Sherryne Warner

Abstract

Hepatitis C is a blood-borne virus primarily spread through sharing of drug-injecting equipment. Approximately 150 million people worldwide and 230,000 Australians are living with chronic hepatitis C infection. In March 2016, the Australian government began subsidizing direct acting antivirals (DAAs) for the treatment of hepatitis C, which are highly effective (95% cure rate) and have few side effects. However, there is limited evidence to inform the provision of adherence support to people with hepatitis C on DAAs including the level of medication adherence required to achieve a cure. In February 2016, a steering committee comprising four authors convened an expert panel consisting of six hepatology nurses, a hepatologist, a pharmacist, a consumer with hepatitis C and treatment experience, and a consumer advocate. The expert panel focused on the following criteria: barriers and enablers to DAA adherence; assessment and monitoring of DAA adherence; components of a patient-centered approach to DAA adherence; patients that may require additional adherence support; and interventions to support DAA adherence. The resultant guidelines underwent three rounds of consultation with the expert panel, Australasian Hepatology Association (AHA) members (n=12), and key stakeholders (n=7) in June 2016. Feedback was considered by the steering committee and incorporated if consensus was achieved. Twenty-four guidelines emerged from the evidence synthesis and expert panel discussion. The guidelines focus on the pretreatment assessment and education, assessment of treatment readiness, and monitoring of medication adherence. The guidelines are embedded in a patient-centered approach which highlights that all patients are at risk of nonadherence. The guidelines recommend implementing interventions focused on identifying patients' memory triggers and hooks; use of nonconfrontational and nonjudgmental language by health professionals; and objectively monitoring adherence. These are the first guidelines to support patients and health professionals in the delivery of clinical care by identifying practical adherence support interventions for patients taking DAAs.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 5 13%
Student > Master 5 13%
Librarian 4 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Professor 3 8%
Other 9 23%
Unknown 10 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 18%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 10%
Computer Science 2 5%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 12 31%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 February 2017.
All research outputs
#2,365,158
of 14,720,233 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#141
of 1,195 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,864
of 380,354 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#6
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,720,233 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,195 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 380,354 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.