↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Patient and parent preferences for characteristics of prophylactic treatment in hemophilia

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
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
2 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 Mendeley
Title
Patient and parent preferences for characteristics of prophylactic treatment in hemophilia
Published in
Patient preference and adherence, November 2015
DOI 10.2147/ppa.s92520
Pubmed ID
Authors

Roberto Furlan, Sangeeta Krishnan, Jeffrey Vietri

Abstract

New longer-acting factor products will potentially allow for less frequent infusion in prophylactic treatment of hemophilia. However, the role of administration frequency relative to other treatment attributes in determining preferences for prophylactic hemophilia treatment regimens is not well understood. To identify the relative importance of frequency of administration, efficacy, and other treatment characteristics among candidates for prophylactic treatment for hemophilia A and B. An Internet survey was conducted among hemophilia patients and the parents of pediatric hemophilia patients in Australia, Canada, and the US. A monadic conjoint task was included in the survey, which varied frequency of administration (three, two, or one time per week for hemophilia A; twice weekly, weekly, or biweekly for hemophilia B), efficacy (no bleeding or breakthrough bleeding once every 4 months, 6 months, or 12 months), diluent volume (3 mL vs 2.5 mL for hemophilia A; 5 mL vs 3 mL for hemophilia B), vials per infusion (2 vs 1), reconstitution device (assembly required vs not), and manufacturer (established in hemophilia vs not). Respondents were asked their likelihood to switch from their current regimen to the presented treatment. Respondents were told to assume that other aspects of treatment, such as risk of inhibitor development, cost, and method of distribution, would remain the same. A total of 89 patients and/or parents of children with hemophilia A participated; another 32 were included in the exercise for hemophilia B. Relative importance was 47%, 24%, and 18% for frequency of administration, efficacy, and manufacturer, respectively, in hemophilia A; analogous values were 48%, 26%, and 21% in hemophilia B. The remaining attributes had little impact on preferences. Patients who are candidates for prophylaxis and their caregivers indicate a preference for reduced frequency of administration and high efficacy, but preferences were more sensitive to administration frequency than small changes in annual bleeding rate.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 51 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 17%
Student > Master 6 12%
Other 6 12%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 16 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 8 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 6%
Computer Science 2 4%
Other 11 21%
Unknown 17 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 25 August 2017.
All research outputs
#2,018,111
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#77
of 1,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,701
of 294,815 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#1
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% 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 particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.