↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Openness to and preference for attributes of biologic therapy prior to initiation among patients with rheumatoid arthritis: patient and rheumatologist perspectives and implications for decision making

Overview of attention for article published in Patient preference and adherence, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (61st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
Title
Openness to and preference for attributes of biologic therapy prior to initiation among patients with rheumatoid arthritis: patient and rheumatologist perspectives and implications for decision making
Published in
Patient preference and adherence, June 2016
DOI 10.2147/ppa.s107790
Pubmed ID
Authors

Amir Goren, Susan Bolge, Duncan Brown, Seth Ginsberg, Isabel Allen

Abstract

Despite American College of Rheumatology recommendations, appropriate and timely initiation of biologic therapies does not always occur. This study examined openness to and preference for attributes of biologic therapies among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), differences in patients' and rheumatologists' perceptions, and discussions around biologic therapy initiation. A self-administered online survey was completed by 243 adult patients with RA in the US who were taking disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and had never taken, but had discussed biologic therapy with a rheumatologist. Patients were recruited from a consumer panel (n=142) and patient advocacy organization (n=101). A separate survey was completed by 103 rheumatologists who treated at least 25 patients with RA per month with biologic therapy. Descriptive and bivariate analyses were conducted separately for patients and rheumatologists. Attributes of biologic therapy included route of administration (intravenous infusion or subcutaneous injection), frequency of injections/infusions, and duration of infusion. Over half of patients (53.1%) were open to both intravenous infusion and subcutaneous injection, whereas rheumatologists reported 40.7% of patients would be open to both. Only 26.3% of patients strongly preferred subcutaneous injection, whereas rheumatologists reported 35.2%. Discrepancies were even more pronounced among specific patient types (eg, older vs younger patients and Medicare recipients). Among patients, 23% reported initiating discussion about biologics and 54% reported their rheumatologist initiated the discussion. A majority of rheumatologists reported discussing in detail several key aspects of biologics, whereas a minority of patients reported the same. Preferences differed among patients with RA from rheumatologists' perceptions of these preferences for biologic therapy, including greater openness to intravenous infusion among patients than assumed by rheumatologists and relative lack of discussion about key aspects of biologic therapy perceived by patients. There is a need for more open communication about treatment options, which may encourage more appropriate, timely transition to biologic therapy.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 23%
Student > Bachelor 4 18%
Researcher 4 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 14%
Professor 2 9%
Other 4 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 27%
Psychology 3 14%
Unspecified 2 9%
Social Sciences 2 9%
Other 3 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 13 October 2016.
All research outputs
#3,601,085
of 8,514,100 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#302
of 819 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#101,312
of 267,845 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#26
of 66 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,514,100 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 57th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 819 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 267,845 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 66 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.