↓ Skip to main content

How to Screen for Non-Adherence to Antihypertensive Therapy

Overview of attention for article published in Current Hypertension Reports, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
66 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
140 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
How to Screen for Non-Adherence to Antihypertensive Therapy
Published in
Current Hypertension Reports, November 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11906-016-0697-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pankaj Gupta, Prashanth Patel, Robert Horne, Heather Buchanan, Bryan Williams, Maciej Tomaszewski

Abstract

The quality of assessment of non-adherence to treatment in hypertensive is poor. Within this review, we discuss the different methods used to assess adherence to blood-pressure-lowering medications in hypertension patients. Subjective reports such as physicians' perceptions are inaccurate, and questionnaires completed by patients tend to overreport adherence and show a low diagnostic specificity. Indirect objective methods such as pharmacy database records can be useful, but they are limited by the robustness of the recorded data. Electronic medication monitoring devices are accurate but usually track adherence to only a single medication and can be expensive. Overall, the fundamental issue with indirect objective measures is that they do not fully confirm ingestion of antihypertensive medications. Detection of antihypertensive medications in body fluids using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry is currently, in our view, the most robust and clinically useful method to assess non-adherence to blood-pressure-lowering treatment. It is particularly helpful in patients presenting with resistant, refractory or uncontrolled hypertension despite the optimal therapy. We recommend using this diagnostic strategy to detect non-adherence alongside a no-blame approach tailoring support to address the perceptions (e.g. beliefs about the illness and treatment) and practicalities (e.g. capability and resources) influencing motivation and ability to adhere.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 140 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 139 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 17%
Researcher 14 10%
Student > Bachelor 14 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 9%
Student > Postgraduate 11 8%
Other 23 16%
Unknown 41 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 41 29%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 20 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 10%
Psychology 5 4%
Social Sciences 3 2%
Other 12 9%
Unknown 45 32%
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 07 July 2017.
All research outputs
#17,855,900
of 22,931,367 outputs
Outputs from Current Hypertension Reports
#528
of 734 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#287,747
of 416,493 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Hypertension Reports
#5
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,931,367 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 734 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 416,493 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.