| Title |
Chronic myeloid leukemia patients and treatment-free remission attitudes: a multicenter survey
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Patient preference and adherence, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ppa.s163393 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jin Lou, Junjie Huang, Zitong Wang, Bingbing Wen, Chuanqing Tu, Wangxiang Huang, Zhimin Zhai, Xin Du |
| Abstract |
Treatment-free remission (TFR) is becoming an essential goal for chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) patients in clinical practice. Few studies have emphasized patient attitudes or preferences about discontinuing tyrosine kinase inhibitors treatment. This study aimed to evaluate the characteristics of Chinese CML patients and their views and perspectives on TFR. A total of 329 CML patients participated in this multicenter, questionnaire-based, standardized, semi-structured, interview-guided, open-ended, cross-sectional study. Information about demographics, diagnosis information, treatment history, quality of life (QoL), and TFR preference was collected. The adherence rate was 50% (N=163) and sex dependent (males, OR=2.24, 95% CI=1.40-3.58). Physical activity, symptom burden, mood impact, and daily impact were found to be better among adherent patients. Thirty-four percent of the patients were willing to attempt TFR positively. The reasons for preferring TFR were due to side effects (56%) followed by high cost (52%), inconvenience (42%), and pregnancy need (41%). Multivariate analysis indicated that patients who were younger (OR=0.96, 95% CI=0.94-0.99) with shorter disease duration (OR=0.90, 95% CI=0.82-0.98) and higher disease symptom burden (OR=1.08, 95% CI=0.98-1.21) were more likely positive about TFR. Patients who were younger with shorter disease duration and higher disease symptom burden were more likely to try TFR. They expressed several perceived noncost factors of TFR. Our data may help promote the management of CML and designing of clinical trials for TFR in some developed regions of China. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 38 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 21% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 8% |
| Researcher | 2 | 5% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 21% |
| Unknown | 12 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 24% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 5 | 13% |
| Unknown | 14 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 12 July 2018.
All research outputs
#4,838,109
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#309
of 1,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,192
of 342,877 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#9
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th 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 well, scoring higher than 79% 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 342,877 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 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.