↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Understanding ethno-cultural differences in cardiac medication adherence behavior: a Canadian study

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
23 Mendeley
Title
Understanding ethno-cultural differences in cardiac medication adherence behavior: a Canadian study
Published in
Patient preference and adherence, September 2018
DOI 10.2147/ppa.s169167
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kathryn King-Shier, Hude Quan, Charles Mather, Elaine Chong, Pamela LeBlanc, Nadia Khan

Abstract

There are ethno-cultural differences in cardiac patients' adherence to medications. It is unclear why this occurs. We thus aimed to generate an in-depth understanding about the decision-making process and potential ethno-cultural differences, of white, Chinese, and south Asian cardiac patients when making the decision to adhere to a medication regimen. A hierarchical descriptive decision-model was generated based on previous qualitative work, pilot tested, and revised to be more parsimonious. The final model was examined using a novel group of 286 cardiac patients, using their self-reported adherence as the reference. Thereafter, each node was examined to identify decision-making constructs that might be more applicable to white, Chinese or south Asian groups. Non-adherent south Asians were most likely to identify a lack of receipt of detailed medication information, and less confidence and trust in the health care system and health care professionals. Both Chinese and south Asian participants were less likely to be adherent when they had doubts about western medicine (eg, the effects and safety of the medication). Being able to afford the cost of medications was associated with increased adherence. Being away from home reduced the likelihood of adherence in each group. The overall model had 67.1% concordance with the participants' initial self-reported adherence, largely due to participants' overreporting adherence. These identified elements of the decision-making process are generally not considered in traditionally used medication adherence questionnaires. Importantly these elements are modifiable and ought to be the focus of both interventions and measurement of medication adherence.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 17%
Student > Bachelor 3 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 13%
Researcher 2 9%
Lecturer 1 4%
Other 6 26%
Unknown 4 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Business, Management and Accounting 3 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 13%
Computer Science 2 9%
Engineering 2 9%
Other 6 26%
Unknown 4 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 11 September 2018.
All research outputs
#15,695,741
of 25,643,886 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#853
of 1,765 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#189,868
of 346,502 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#30
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,643,886 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,765 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 346,502 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.