↓ Skip to main content

Patients’ beliefs on the impediments to good diabetes control: a mixed methods study of patients in general practice

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of General Practice, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
92 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Patients’ beliefs on the impediments to good diabetes control: a mixed methods study of patients in general practice
Published in
British Journal of General Practice, October 2016
DOI 10.3399/bjgp16x687589
Pubmed ID
Authors

Amanda Jane Elliott, Fiona Harris, Sandra G Laird

Abstract

Most people with diabetes are not attaining desirable levels of HbA1c (glycated haemoglobin), or of blood pressure and cholesterol, leaving them at risk of developing complications. To identify ways of improving diabetes control by gaining insight into patients' attitudes/beliefs. Questionnaires were offered to patients attending for a diabetes review in the 24 GP practices of North East Hampshire and Farnham Clinical Commissioning Group. Infrequent attenders were contacted by post. Volunteers then participated in focus groups. Self-reported medication adherence was good with 83% (98/118) of responders recording ≥9 on a 10-point scale. Patients generally accepted they 'needed' and 'could take' medication. A substantial minority reported 'not liking' taking tablets. Focus groups confirmed this and revealed a reluctance to change lifestyle, with medication reported as a way to evade it. A total of 68 out of 112 responders (60.7%) knew their HbA1c value. However, focus groups identified little understanding of HbA1c, with responders perceiving it as medical jargon. Phrases such as 'stuck-on-sugar' or 'sugarload' were suggested as being semantically easier to understand. The questionnaire revealed trust in clinicians. This was confirmed in focus groups but confounded by frequent reports of healthcare providers giving inadequate/incorrect advice. Investment in lifestyle change is needed. Participants were reluctant to change and saw medication as a way of avoiding it. HbA1c needs to be better explained. Intuitive phrases such as 'stuck-on-sugar' or 'sugarload' could be adopted into common parlance. Inadequate/incorrect advice seems to be hampering diabetes management and there appears to be a need for more diabetes-trained clinicians.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 1%
Unknown 91 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 13%
Researcher 12 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 13%
Student > Bachelor 10 11%
Student > Postgraduate 7 8%
Other 17 18%
Unknown 22 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 15%
Social Sciences 8 9%
Psychology 7 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Other 7 8%
Unknown 28 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 March 2017.
All research outputs
#4,113,919
of 22,880,691 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#1,609
of 4,287 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,980
of 320,123 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#41
of 87 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,880,691 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,287 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 320,123 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 87 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 54% of its contemporaries.