↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Validation of a patient interview for assessing reasons for antipsychotic discontinuation and continuation

Overview of attention for article published in Patient preference and adherence, July 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 Mendeley
Title
Validation of a patient interview for assessing reasons for antipsychotic discontinuation and continuation
Published in
Patient preference and adherence, July 2012
DOI 10.2147/ppa.s25635
Pubmed ID
Authors

Louis S Matza, Glenn A Phillips, Dennis A Revicki, Haya Ascher-Svanum, Karen G Malley, Andrew C Palsgrove, Douglas E Faries, Virginia Stauffer, Bruce J Kinon, A George Awad, Richard SE Keefe, Dieter Naber

Abstract

The Reasons for Antipsychotic Discontinuation Interview (RAD-I) was developed to assess patients' perceptions of reasons for discontinuing or continuing an antipsychotic. The current study examined reliability and validity of domain scores representing three factors contributing to these treatment decisions: treatment benefits, adverse events, and distal reasons other than direct effects of the medication.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 13%
Student > Postgraduate 4 10%
Other 3 8%
Student > Master 3 8%
Other 9 23%
Unknown 6 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 26%
Psychology 8 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 12 31%
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 15 July 2012.
All research outputs
#17,285,668
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#1,064
of 1,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#116,371
of 176,748 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#10
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 176,748 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.