↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Necessary alternatives: patients’ views of asthma treatment

Overview of attention for article published in Patient preference and adherence, June 2010
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Necessary alternatives: patients’ views of asthma treatment
Published in
Patient preference and adherence, June 2010
DOI 10.2147/ppa.s10870
Pubmed ID
Authors

Helen Kopnina, Joke Haafkens

Abstract

This article is based on semistructured interviews and focus groups conducted with 27 asthma patients in The Netherlands who chose complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) for treatment of their condition. All subjects were contacted through an online forum for asthma patients hosted by the Dutch Asthma Foundation. Nineteen subjects (12 women and seven men) between the ages of 29 and 65 years participated in the interviews, held between June 2009 and January 2010. All of the participating subjects had experience with conventional medications, including anti-inflammatory corticosteroids and bronchodilators. For the focus group meeting, held in February 2010, the sample included seven subjects (four women and three men) between the ages of 31 and 46 years, none of whom had ever used conventional medication and all of whom were using CAM. All subjects in the sample had been diagnosed with asthma by their physician or lung specialist. The study examined the causes of patient noncompliance with the prescribed medical regime. It is argued that evidence-based rationality on the part of subjects is an overlooked dimension of their experience of asthma. This study demonstrates the role that the patients' social network, including medical practitioners, friends, and family, and other asthmatics, plays in the process of decision-making and choices about treating asthma. It also demonstrates the role of patients' information-searching strategies. The author concludes that patient noncompliance with commonly prescribed medication and selection of alternative medical treatment is less a matter of denial of their diagnosis or the severity of their illness, but more a matter of choice informed by evidence-based rationality.

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 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 3%
Italy 1 3%
Unknown 33 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 14%
Student > Master 5 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Other 11 31%
Unknown 4 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 23%
Psychology 7 20%
Social Sciences 5 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 9 26%
Attention Score in Context

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 15 October 2017.
All research outputs
#17,031,938
of 25,806,080 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#1,003
of 1,769 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#86,696
of 106,149 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#4
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,806,080 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 106,149 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.