| Title |
Consumer interpretation of ramipril and clopidogrel medication risk information – implications for risk communication strategies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Patient preference and adherence, July 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ppa.s86414 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Vivien Tong, David K Raynor, Susan J Blalock, Parisa Aslani |
| Abstract |
Side effects and side-effect risk information can be provided using written medicine information. However, challenges exist in effectively communicating this information to consumers. This study aimed to explore broad consumer profiles relevant to ramipril and clopidogrel side-effect risk information interpretation. Three focus groups were conducted (n=18 consumers) exploring consumer perspectives, understanding and treatment decision making in response to ramipril and clopidogrel written medicine information leaflets containing side effects and side-effect risk information. All discussions were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed to explore consumer profiles pertaining to side-effect risk appraisal. Three consumer profiles emerged: glass half-empty, glass half-full, and middle-of-the-road consumers, highlighting the influence of perceived individual susceptibility, interpretation of side-effect risk information, and interindividual differences, on consumers' understanding of side-effect risk information. All profiles emphasized the importance of gaining an understanding of individual side-effect risk when taking medicines. Written side-effect risk information is not interpreted uniformly by consumers. Consumers formulated their own construct of individual susceptibility to side effects. Health care professionals should consider how consumers interpret side-effect risk information and its impact on medication use. Existing risk communication strategies should be evaluated in light of these profiles to determine their effectiveness in conveying information. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 2 | 50% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 25 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 15% |
| Researcher | 4 | 15% |
| Lecturer | 3 | 12% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 5 | 19% |
| Unknown | 6 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 19% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 5 | 19% |
| Psychology | 3 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 8% |
| Chemical Engineering | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 15% |
| Unknown | 6 | 23% |
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 21 July 2015.
All research outputs
#14,536,679
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#735
of 1,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#125,721
of 277,613 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#16
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 57% 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 277,613 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 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 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 69% of its contemporaries.