↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Complex antithrombotic therapy: determinants of patient preference and impact on medication adherence

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 Mendeley
Title
Complex antithrombotic therapy: determinants of patient preference and impact on medication adherence
Published in
Patient preference and adherence, November 2015
DOI 10.2147/ppa.s91553
Pubmed ID
Authors

Neena S Abraham, Aanand D Naik, Richard L Street, Diana L Castillo, Anita Deswal, Peter A Richardson, Christine M Hartman, George Shelton, Liana Fraenkel

Abstract

For years, older patients have been prescribed multiple blood-thinning medications (complex antithrombotic therapy [CAT]) to decrease their risk of cardiovascular events. These therapies, however, increase risk of adverse bleeding events. We assessed patient-reported trade-offs between cardioprotective benefit, gastrointestinal bleeding risk, and burden of self-management using adaptive conjoint analysis (ACA). As ACA could be a clinically useful tool to obtain patient preferences and guide future patient-centered care, we examined the clinical application of ACA to obtain patient preferences and the impact of ACA on medication adherence. An electronic ACA survey led 201 respondents through medication risk-benefit trade-offs, revealing patients' preferences for the CAT risk/benefit profile they valued most. The post-ACA prescription regimen was categorized as concordant or discordant with elicited preferences. Adherence was measured using VA pharmacy refill data to measure persistence of use prior to and 1 year following preference-elicitation. Additionally, we analyzed qualitative interviews of 56 respondents regarding their perception of the ACA and the preference elicitation experience. Participants prioritized 5-year cardiovascular benefit over preventing adverse events. Medication side effects, medication-associated activity restrictions, and regimen complexity were less important than bleeding risk and cardioprotective benefit. One year after the ACA survey, a 15% increase in adherence was observed in patients prescribed a preference-concordant CAT strategy. An increase of only 6% was noted in patients prescribed a preference-discordant strategy. Qualitative interviews showed that the ACA exercise contributed to increase inpatient activation, patient awareness of preferences, and patient engagement with clinicians about treatment decisions. By working through trade-offs, patients actively clarified their preferences, learning about CAT risks, benefits, and self-management. Patients with medication regimens concordant with their preferences had increased medication adherence at 1 year compared to those with discordant medication regimens. The ACA task improved adherence through enhanced patient engagement regarding treatment preferences.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users 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 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 56 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 28%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 9%
Researcher 4 7%
Student > Bachelor 3 5%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 15 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 14%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 7%
Social Sciences 4 7%
Psychology 3 5%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 17 30%
Attention Score in Context

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 10 January 2016.
All research outputs
#5,156,627
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#364
of 1,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,696
of 294,815 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#8
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 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 294,815 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.