↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Clinical significance of barriers to blood glucose control in type 2 diabetes patients with insufficient glycemic control

Overview of attention for article published in Patient preference and adherence, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
Title
Clinical significance of barriers to blood glucose control in type 2 diabetes patients with insufficient glycemic control
Published in
Patient preference and adherence, June 2015
DOI 10.2147/ppa.s84268
Pubmed ID
Authors

Takeo Suzuki, Ryoko Takei, Toyoshi Inoguchi, Noriyuki Sonoda, Shuji Sasaki, Toshihiko Kaise, Ryoichi Takayanagi

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to assess actual barriers to blood glucose control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and to investigate barrier-related factors in an exploratory manner. This cross-sectional study assessed patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated as outpatients at medical institutions within Fukuoka Prefecture, Japan. Barriers to blood glucose control were examined in patients with glycated hemoglobin ≥6.9% using a nine-item questionnaire. Answers were also obtained from physicians in charge of the patients for seven of nine questions. Seven hundred and thirteen patients answered the questionnaire. Many physicians and patients described barriers that involved difficulty in complying with diet therapy. For six of the seven barriers, patient awareness was lower than physician awareness. Patient-reported lack of concern for diabetes mellitus was more prevalent among patients with macrovascular complications. Patients who reported difficulty in compliance with exercise therapy and fear of hypoglycemia were more likely to suffer from microvascular complications. For many of the barriers to blood glucose control, patients were less aware than physicians, suggesting that we need to take action to raise patient awareness. Of interest are the observations that the relevant barriers differed for macrovascular and microvascular complications and that the relationship between presence of macrovascular complications and lack of concern about diabetes mellitus.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 19%
Student > Master 4 13%
Researcher 4 13%
Student > Postgraduate 3 9%
Professor 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 11 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 7 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 22%
Psychology 2 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Sports and Recreations 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 11 34%
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 28 June 2015.
All research outputs
#16,047,334
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#914
of 1,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#149,472
of 281,411 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#19
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 281,411 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 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 53% of its contemporaries.