| Title |
Promoting adherence to nebulized therapy in cystic fibrosis: poster development and a qualitative exploration of adherence
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Patient preference and adherence, August 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ppa.s82896 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Stephen Jones, Nathan Babiker, Emma Gardner, Jane Royle, Rachael Curley, Zhe Hui Hoo, Martin J Wildman |
| Abstract |
Cystic fibrosis (CF) health care professionals recognize the need to motivate people with CF to adhere to nebulizer treatments, yet little is known about how best to achieve this. We aimed to produce motivational posters to support nebulizer adherence by using social marketing involving people with CF in the development of those posters. The Sheffield CF multidisciplinary team produced preliminary ideas that were elaborated upon with semi-structured interviews among people with CF to explore barriers and facilitators to the use of nebulized therapy. Initial themes and poster designs were refined using an online focus group to finalize the poster designs. People with CF preferred aspirational posters describing what could be achieved through adherence in contrast to posters that highlighted the adverse consequences of nonadherence. A total of 14 posters were produced through this process. People with CF can be engaged to develop promotional material to support adherence, providing a unique perspective differing from that of the CF multidisciplinary team. Further research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of these posters to support nebulizer adherence. |
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 Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 36 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 9 | 25% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Unknown | 8 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 28% |
| Psychology | 5 | 14% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 11% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Unknown | 9 | 25% |
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 05 October 2015.
All research outputs
#14,915,476
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#778
of 1,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#130,511
of 276,428 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#22
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 54% 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 276,428 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 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 60% of its contemporaries.