↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Development and evaluation of the Measure of Drug Self-Management

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
Title
Development and evaluation of the Measure of Drug Self-Management
Published in
Patient preference and adherence, July 2015
DOI 10.2147/ppa.s85411
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stacy Cooper Bailey, Izabela E Annis, Daniel S Reuland, Autumn D Locklear, Betsy L Sleath, Michael S Wolf

Abstract

Current adherence scales often fail to assess the full spectrum of behaviors associated with safe and appropriate drug use and may be unsuitable for patients with limited health literacy. We sought to develop and evaluate a comprehensive yet brief Measure of Drug Self-Management (MeDS) for use in research and clinical settings among diverse patient groups. Expert opinion, literature reviews, and interviews with patients and providers were utilized to create and revise potential items. Item performance testing was then conducted among 193 adult English-speaking patients with hypertension and diabetes. Factor analysis was used to inform item selection. Reliability was assessed via calculations of internal consistency. To assess construct and predictive validity, MeDS scores were compared with scores from the 8-item Morisky Medication Adherence Scale and relevant clinical measures (HbA1c, blood pressure, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol). The MeDS demonstrated adequate internal consistency with a Cronbach's α of 0.72. The MeDS was significantly correlated with the Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (r= -0.62; P<0.001). The MeDS was also associated with clinical measures, with statistically significant correlations found between MeDS scores and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (r= -0.27, P≤0.001) and diastolic blood pressure (r= -0.18, P=0.01). The MeDS seems to be a valid and reliable tool that can be used to assess medication self-management skills among diverse patients, including those with limited literacy skills. Future studies are needed to test the tool in actual use and explore clinical applications.

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 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 20%
Student > Master 6 15%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Librarian 2 5%
Other 7 18%
Unknown 11 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 18%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 8%
Social Sciences 3 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 12 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 15 January 2016.
All research outputs
#2,964,872
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#144
of 1,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,974
of 277,610 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#5
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 277,610 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 87% 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 done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.