| Title |
Recommendations for Providers on Person-Centered Approaches to Assess and Improve Medication Adherence
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of General Internal Medicine, September 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11606-016-3851-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hayden B. Bosworth, Stephen P. Fortmann, Jennifer Kuntz, Leah L. Zullig, Phil Mendys, Monika Safford, Shobha Phansalkar, Tracy Wang, Maureen H. Rumptz |
| Abstract |
Medication non-adherence is a significant clinical challenge that adversely affects psychosocial factors, costs, and outcomes that are shared by patients, family members, providers, healthcare systems, payers, and society. Patient-centered care (i.e., involving patients and their families in planning their health care) is increasingly emphasized as a promising approach for improving medication adherence, but clinician education around what this might look like in a busy primary care environment is lacking. We use a case study to demonstrate key skills such as motivational interviewing, counseling, and shared decision-making for clinicians interested in providing patient-centered care in efforts to improve medication adherence. Such patient-centered approaches hold considerable promise for addressing the high rates of non-adherence to medications for chronic conditions. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Djibouti | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 25% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 180 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 180 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 30 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 23 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 18 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 13 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 13 | 7% |
| Other | 32 | 18% |
| Unknown | 51 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 41 | 23% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 27 | 15% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 17 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 15 | 8% |
| Psychology | 9 | 5% |
| Other | 17 | 9% |
| Unknown | 54 | 30% |
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 30 October 2018.
All research outputs
#13,978,562
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#5,149
of 7,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#179,543
of 339,100 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#39
of 76 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,806 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.8. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 339,100 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 76 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.