| Title |
Patient views on an electronic dispensing device for prepackaged polypharmacy: a qualitative assessment in an ambulatory setting
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Integrated Pharmacy Research and Practice, November 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2147/iprp.s90923 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Samuel S Allemann, Kurt E Hersberger, Isabelle Arnet |
| Abstract |
To collect opinions on medication management aids (MMAs) in general and on an electronic MMA (e-MMA) dispensing prepackaged polypharmacy in sealed pouches. The setting involved community-dwelling older adults in Basel, Switzerland, in 2013. The study involved 1) a 14-day trial with the e-MMA and 2) a focus group to identify general attributes of MMAs, their applicability to the e-MMA, and possible target groups for the e-MMA. Six participants using long-term polypharmacy and willing to try new technologies completed the 14-day trial and participated in the focus group. Inductive content analysis was performed to extract data. Participants rated ten of 17 general attributes as clearly applicable to the e-MMA and five as unsuitable. Attributes pertained to three interrelating themes: product design, patient support, and living conditions. Envisaged target groups were patients with time-sensitive medication regimens, patients with dementia, the visually impaired, and several patients living together to prevent accidental intake of the wrong medication. The evaluated e-MMA for prepackaged polypharmacy met the majority of the requirements set for an MMA. Patients' living conditions, such as mobility, remain the key determinants for acceptance of an e-MMA. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 States | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 42 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 19% |
| Researcher | 5 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 12% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 7 | 17% |
| Unknown | 11 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 6 | 14% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 14% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 10% |
| Psychology | 3 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 17% |
| Unknown | 14 | 33% |
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 09 November 2015.
All research outputs
#13,216,332
of 22,832,057 outputs
Outputs from Integrated Pharmacy Research and Practice
#49
of 100 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#130,934
of 284,444 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Integrated Pharmacy Research and Practice
#2
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,832,057 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 100 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 284,444 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 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.