↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Variation in medication adherence across patient behavioral segments: a multi-country study in hypertension

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
71 Mendeley
Title
Variation in medication adherence across patient behavioral segments: a multi-country study in hypertension
Published in
Patient preference and adherence, October 2015
DOI 10.2147/ppa.s91284
Pubmed ID
Authors

Robert Sandy, Ulla Connor

Abstract

This study determines the following for a hypertensive patient population: 1) the prevalence of patient worldview clusters; 2) differences in medication adherence across these clusters; and 3) the adherence predictive power of the clusters relative to measures of patients' concerns over their medication's cost, side effects, and efficacy. Members from patient panels in the UK, Germany, Italy, and Spain were invited to participate in an online survey that included the Medication Adherence Report Scale-5 (MARS-5) adherence instrument and a patient segmentation instrument developed by CoMac Analytics, Inc, based on a linguistic analysis of patient talk. Subjects were screened to have a diagnosis of hypertension and treatment with at least one antihypertensive agent. A total of 353 patients completed the online survey in August/September 2011 and were categorized against three different behavioral domains: 1) control orientation (n=176 respondents [50%] for I, internal; n=177 respondents [50%] for E, external); 2) emotion (n=100 respondents [28%] for P, positive; n=253 respondents [72%] for N, negative); and 3) agency or ability to act on choices (n=227 respondents [64%] for H, high agency; n=126 [36%] for L, low agency). Domains were grouped into eight different clusters with EPH and IPH being the most prevalent (88 respondents [25%] in each cluster). The prevalence of other behavior clusters ranged from 6% (22 respondents, INH) to 12% (41 respondents, IPL). The proportion of patients defined as perfectly adherent (scored 25 on MARS-5) varied sharply across the segments: 51% adherent (45 of 88 respondents) for the IPH vs 8% adherent (2 of 25 respondents) classified as INL. Side effects, being employed, and stopping medicine because the patient got better were all significant determinants of adherence in a probit regression model. By categorizing patients into worldview clusters, we identified wide differences in adherence that can be used to prioritize interventions and to customize adherence messages. Also, the predictive power of segments was greater than that for variables measuring concerns over cost, side effects, and efficacy.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
Unknown 70 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 14%
Student > Master 9 13%
Other 6 8%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Other 13 18%
Unknown 23 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 13%
Social Sciences 6 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 4%
Other 12 17%
Unknown 25 35%
Attention Score in Context

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 30 October 2015.
All research outputs
#20,553,433
of 25,257,066 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#1,434
of 1,753 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#206,127
of 281,610 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#50
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,257,066 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,753 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% 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 281,610 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.