| Title |
Treatment satisfaction with botulinum toxin: a comparison between blepharospasm and cervical dystonia
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Patient preference and adherence, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ppa.s141060 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Bernd Leplow, Anna Eggebrecht, Johannes Pohl |
| Abstract |
Differential effects of botulinum toxin (BoNT) treatment in cervical dystonia (CD) and blepharospasm (BSP) treatment satisfaction and emotional responses to a life with a disabling condition were investigated. Special interest was drawn to the course within a BoNT treatment cycle and the effects of subjective well-being vs perceived intensity of motor symptoms and quality of life. A questionnaire was distributed among 372 CD patients and 125 BSP patients, recruited from 13 BoNT centers throughout Germany. Items were related to dystonic symptoms, BoNT treatment responses and treatment satisfaction, quality of life, working situation, and emotional reactions to a life with dystonia. CD patients and BSP patients were widely satisfied with BoNT treatment, but treatment satisfaction worsened significantly within the treatment cycle. Especially CD patients reported that both the dystonic symptoms and the effects of BoNT treatment were influenced by emotional factors. Despite good overall treatment effects, patients from both groups perceived marked persistence of motor symptoms, restrictions of everyday life functions, and reduced quality of life. Functional amelioration of motor symptoms and emotional well-being were only moderately correlated. About 22% of patients from both groups reported mental disorders or emotional disturbances prior to the onset of dystonia. As numerous psychological factors determine perceived outcome, BoNT treatment should be further improved by patient's education strategies enhancing behavioral self-control. From the patient's perspective, individual intervals, which may avoid exacerbation between injection points, should be considered. Moreover, patients at risk, with reduced adherence and poor BoNT outcome, should be identified and addressed within psychoeducation. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 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 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 22 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 4 | 18% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 9% |
| Other | 3 | 14% |
| Unknown | 6 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 27% |
| Psychology | 3 | 14% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 9% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 5% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 8 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 21 November 2017.
All research outputs
#3,310,848
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#174
of 1,733 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,393
of 324,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#3
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 324,978 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 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 95% of its contemporaries.