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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Effectiveness and content analysis of interventions to enhance medication adherence and blood pressure control in hypertension: A systematic review and meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Psychology & Health, January 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1080/08870446.2016.1273356 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Eimear C. Morrissey, Hannah Durand, Robby Nieuwlaat, Tamara Navarro, R. Brian Haynes, Jane C. Walsh, Gerard J. Molloy |
| Abstract |
The objective of this systematic review is to evaluate the effectiveness of medication adherence interventions on blood pressure control in hypertensive patients. In addition, we aim to explore what barriers and facilitators in the interventions may have been targeted and how these might be related to the effect size on blood pressure (BP). This review is a hypertension-specific update to the previous Cochrane Review by Nieuwlaat et al. ( 2014 ) on interventions to enhance medication adherence. A systematic literature search was carried out and two authors independently screened titles and abstracts for their eligibility for inclusion and independently extracted data from the selected studies and assessed the methodological quality using the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool. A meta-analysis was conducted and additionally, theoretical factors in interventions were identified using the Theoretical Domains Framework. The meta-analysis found a modest main effect of adherence interventions on SBP (MD -2.71 mm Hg, 95% CI -4.17 to -1.26) and DBP (MD -1.25 mm Hg, 95% CI -1.72 to -.79). However, there was substantial significant heterogeneity across both outcomes. A narrative review on adherence outcomes was conducted. In terms of the theoretical analysis, the relationship between the total number of times the domains were coded within an intervention and change of SBP (r = -.234, p = .335) and DBP was not significant (r = -.080, p = .732). Similarly, the relationship between the total number of times different domains were coded within an intervention and change of SBP (r = .080, p = .746) and DBP was not significant (r = -.188, p = .415). This review and meta-analysis of interventions documented significant but modest post-intervention improvements in BP outcomes among hypertensive patients. However, this is a tentative finding as substantial heterogeneity and potential biases were present. One of the greatest challenges of this review was assessing risk of bias, extracting sufficient data to calculate effect size and coding interventions with the amount of information provided in papers. It is imperative that future adherence research comprehensively reports methodology. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Ireland | 8 | 30% |
| United Kingdom | 5 | 19% |
| Canada | 2 | 7% |
| Montenegro | 2 | 7% |
| Australia | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 9 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 16 | 59% |
| Scientists | 8 | 30% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 7% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 116 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 116 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 17 | 15% |
| Researcher | 12 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 18 | 16% |
| Unknown | 44 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 19% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 11% |
| Psychology | 12 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 3% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 14 | 12% |
| Unknown | 48 | 41% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 24 August 2021.
All research outputs
#2,037,131
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from Psychology & Health
#152
of 1,166 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,419
of 422,653 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psychology & Health
#6
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,166 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 422,653 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.