| Title |
Barriers to treatment: describing them from a different perspective
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Patient preference and adherence, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ppa.s147420 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Francesca Devine, Taylor Edwards, Steven R Feldman |
| Abstract |
Poor adherence is the result of many barriers. Most of the adherence research has focused on the patients' hurdles to adherence, instead of the responsibility the physician has for assuring adherence to treatment. The purpose of this review is to identify barriers to medication adherence and refocus how we describe those barriers in terms of physician behavior hurdles. PubMed was systematically searched for systematic reviews published between January 01, 2010, and December 06, 2017, that provided barriers to medication adherence. The searches were limited to reviews having adherence to medication prescribed in the outpatient setting as the main topic. Thirty-one reviews were included in this review, covering 13 different disease categories. Fifty-eight different barriers to adherence to medications for chronic conditions were identified. Nineteen barriers were cited 6 or more times, and these were further categorized based on the World Health Organization's 5 dimensions of adherence and the number of times cited. This review provides clear evidence that adherence to medication is affected by multiple barriers. To facilitate this, adherence barriers can be framed as physician/health system hurdles. With that focus in mind, we may put the responsibility where we have the most control. |
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 | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 129 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 129 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 24 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 17 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 10% |
| Researcher | 10 | 8% |
| Other | 9 | 7% |
| Other | 18 | 14% |
| Unknown | 38 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 31 | 24% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 20 | 16% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 15 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 4% |
| Psychology | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 13 | 10% |
| Unknown | 40 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 11 February 2018.
All research outputs
#8,538,940
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#641
of 1,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#160,117
of 449,550 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#13
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 59% 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 449,550 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 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 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 59% of its contemporaries.