| Title |
Coming full circle in the measurement of medication adherence: opportunities and implications for health care
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Patient preference and adherence, June 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ppa.s127131 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Elizabeth Whalley Buono, Bernard Vrijens, Hayden B Bosworth, Larry Z Liu, Leah L Zullig, Bradi B Granger |
| Abstract |
There is little debate that medication nonadherence is a major public health issue and that measuring nonadherence is a crucial step toward improving it. Moreover, while measuring adherence is becoming both more feasible and more common in the era of electronic information, the reliability and usefulness of various measurements of adherence have not been well established. This paper outlines the most commonly used measures of adherence and discusses the advantages and disadvantages of each that depend on the purpose for which the measure will be used. International consensus statements on definitions and guidelines for selection and use of medication adherence measures were reviewed. The quality of recommended measures was evaluated in selected publications from 2009 to 2014. The most robust medication adherence measures are often ill suited for large-scale use. Less robust measures were found to be commonly misapplied and subsequently misinterpreted in population-level analyses. Adherence assessment and measurement were rarely integrated into standard patient care practice patterns. Successful scalable and impactful strategies to improve medication adherence will depend on understanding how to efficiently and effectively measure adherence. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 67% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 67% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 52 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 8% |
| Researcher | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 7 | 13% |
| Unknown | 17 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 10 | 19% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 15% |
| Psychology | 4 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 6% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 8 | 15% |
| Unknown | 17 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 29 July 2023.
All research outputs
#2,034,841
of 25,604,262 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#74
of 1,768 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,848
of 331,069 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#3
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,604,262 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,768 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 95% 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 331,069 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 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 91% of its contemporaries.