↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Lack of coordination between partners: investigation of Physician-Preferred and Patient-Preferred (4P) basal insulin titration algorithms in the real world

Overview of attention for article published in Patient preference and adherence, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Readers on

mendeley
6 Mendeley
Title
Lack of coordination between partners: investigation of Physician-Preferred and Patient-Preferred (4P) basal insulin titration algorithms in the real world
Published in
Patient preference and adherence, July 2018
DOI 10.2147/ppa.s169000
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tong Zhang, Yunjuan Zhao, Tao Du, Xiaodan Zhang, Xiaowei Li, Ruike Liu, Yunlin Wang, Bo Chen, Ling He, Wangen Li

Abstract

Patient-centered care is respectful to a patient's preference. All prior clinical trials on patient self-titration algorithms for basal insulin were decided by physicians. We hypothesized that patients and physicians have different preferences. Physicians and diabetes patients were asked to choose their preferred insulin glargine self-titration algorithm among 5 algorithms. Algorithm 1, 1 U increase once daily; algorithm 2, 2 U increase every 3 days; algorithm 3, 3 U increase every 3 days; algorithm 4, titration every 3 days according to fasting blood glucose, and algorithm 5, weekly titration 2-8 U based on 3-day mean fasting blood glucose levels. Eleven (5.2%) out of 210 physicians and 180 (90.9%) out of 198 patients preferred algorithm 1 (χ2=300.4, p=0.000). In contrast, 195 (92.9%) physicians and 18 (9.1%) patients preferred algorithm 2 (χ2=286.6, p=0.000). In addition, 4 (1.9%) physicians but no patients preferred algorithm 3 (χ2=2.099, p=0.124). Neither physicians nor patients chose algorithms 4 or 5. Most physicians preferred algorithm 2 since it is recommended by guidelines, but most patients preferred algorithm 1 for its simplicity. Patients had different preferences compared with physicians. Attention should be given to patients' preferences to increase adherence and improve glycemic control.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 6 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 6 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 2 33%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 17%
Student > Postgraduate 1 17%
Student > Master 1 17%
Librarian 1 17%
Other 0 0%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 2 33%
Social Sciences 2 33%
Energy 1 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 18 July 2018.
All research outputs
#10,547,629
of 13,243,534 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#903
of 1,095 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#198,690
of 266,405 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#28
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,243,534 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,095 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 266,405 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.