↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Methodological considerations of investigating adherence to using offloading devices among people with diabetes

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 Mendeley
Title
Methodological considerations of investigating adherence to using offloading devices among people with diabetes
Published in
Patient preference and adherence, September 2018
DOI 10.2147/ppa.s175738
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gustav Jarl

Abstract

Foot ulcers are a diabetic complication associated with significant morbidity, mortality, and amputation risk. Offloading devices prevent and heal foot ulcers, but adherence to using these devices is low. The reasons for nonadherence are unclear, and study results are difficult to compare due to methodological heterogeneity. This paper explores aspects of investigating adherence to using offloading devices among people with diabetes and provides recommendations for future studies, focusing on study designs, definitions of adherence, measurement methods, and conceptual frameworks. Most studies use a cross-sectional observational study design, limiting the potential to establish the temporal sequence between predictors and adherence, rule out confounding factors, and establish causality. Studies defining adherence as the length of time the device is worn have often used self-report to measure adherence, which may be unreliable. Studies using activity monitors to measure adherence have defined adherence as the number of steps taken with the device, which excludes weight-bearing activities where no steps are taken. Conceptual frameworks are not made explicit in the current quantitative research. It is concluded that future studies should use a longitudinal design with observational studies to identify patient groups prone to nonadherence and factors that influence adherence and experimental studies to evaluate interventions to improve adherence, focusing on these patient groups and factors. Furthermore, adherence should be defined in terms of relative adherence to using offloading devices during all weight-bearing activities, and objective measurement of adherence (using accelerometers and temperature monitors) should be used whenever possible. Clearly defined conceptual frameworks should guide the choice of factors to include in the study and the analysis of their interactions. By implementing these recommendations, research could provide a stronger evidence base in the future, supporting interventions to increase adherence and thereby improve outcomes for people with diabetic foot complications.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 54 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 22%
Student > Bachelor 9 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 15%
Researcher 5 9%
Lecturer 2 4%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 13 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 22%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Psychology 2 4%
Other 9 17%
Unknown 14 26%
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 22 September 2018.
All research outputs
#20,859,545
of 25,628,260 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#1,437
of 1,765 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#269,723
of 346,466 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#48
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,628,260 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 1,765 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 6th percentile – i.e., 6% 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 346,466 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% 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 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.