↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Empowerment, motivation, and medical adherence (EMMA): the feasibility of a program for patient-centered consultations to support medication adherence and blood glucose control in adults with type 2…

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
114 Mendeley
Title
Empowerment, motivation, and medical adherence (EMMA): the feasibility of a program for patient-centered consultations to support medication adherence and blood glucose control in adults with type 2 diabetes
Published in
Patient preference and adherence, September 2015
DOI 10.2147/ppa.s85528
Pubmed ID
Authors

Annemarie Reinhardt Varming, Ulla Møller Hansen, Gudbjörg Andrésdóttir, Gitte Reventlov Husted, Ingrid Willaing

Abstract

To explore the feasibility of a research-based program for patient-centered consultations to improve medical adherence and blood glucose control in patients with type 2 diabetes. The patient-centered empowerment, motivation, and medical adherence (EMMA) consultation program consisted of three individual consultations and one phone call with a single health care professional (HCP). Nineteen patients with type 2 diabetes completed the feasibility study. Feasibility was assessed by a questionnaire-based interview with patients 2 months after the final consultation and interviews with HCPs. Patient participation was measured by 10-second event coding based on digital recordings and observations of the consultations. HCPs reported that EMMA supported patient-centered consultations by facilitating dialogue, reflection, and patient activity. Patients reported that they experienced valuable learning during the consultations, felt understood, and listened to and felt a trusting relationship with HCPs. Consultations became more person-specific, which helped patients and HCPs to discover inadequate diabetes self-management through shared decision-making. Compared with routine consultations, HCPs talked less and patients talked more. Seven of ten dialogue tools were used by all patients. It was difficult to complete the EMMA consultations within the scheduled time. The EMMA program was feasible, usable, and acceptable to patients and HCPs. The use of tools elicited patients' perspectives and facilitated patient participation and shared decision-making.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 114 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 113 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 12%
Student > Bachelor 11 10%
Researcher 10 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 8%
Other 19 17%
Unknown 32 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 17%
Social Sciences 13 11%
Psychology 5 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Other 11 10%
Unknown 35 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 09 January 2019.
All research outputs
#6,754,661
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#439
of 1,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,146
of 276,789 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#7
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
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 74% 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 276,789 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.