↓ Skip to main content

Adherence to treatment guidelines: the association between stroke risk stratified comparing CHADS2 and CHA2DS2-VASc score levels and warfarin prescription for adult patients with atrial fibrillation

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
117 Mendeley
Title
Adherence to treatment guidelines: the association between stroke risk stratified comparing CHADS2 and CHA2DS2-VASc score levels and warfarin prescription for adult patients with atrial fibrillation
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12913-017-2025-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Scott A. Chapman, Catherine A. St Hill, Meg M. Little, Michael T. Swanoski, Shellina R. Scheiner, Kenric B. Ware, M. Nawal Lutfiyya

Abstract

Ischemic stroke is a risk associated with atrial fibrillation (AF) and is estimated to occur five times more often in afflicted patients than in those without AF. Anti-thrombotic therapy is recommended for the prevention of ischemic stroke. Risk stratification tools, such as the CHADS2, and more recently the CHA2DS2-VASc, for predicting stroke in patients with AF have been developed to determine the level of stroke risk and assist clinicians in the selection of antithrombotic therapy. Warfarin, for stroke prevention in AF, is the most commonly prescribed anticoagulant in North America. The purpose of this study was to examine the utility of using the CHADS2 score levels (low and high) in contrast to the CHA2DS2-VASc when examining the outcome of warfarin prescriptions for adult patients with AF. The CHA2DS2-VASc tool was not widely used in 2010, when the data analyzed were collected. It has only been since 2014 that CHA2DS2-VASc criteria has been recommended to guide anticoagulant treatment in updated AF treatment guidelines. Bivariate and multivariate data analysis strategies were used to analyze 2010 National Ambulatory Care Survey (NAMCS) data. NAMCS is designed to collect data on the use and provision of ambulatory care services nationwide. The study population for this research was US adults with a diagnosis of AF. Warfarin prescription was the dependent variable for this study. The study population was 7,669,844 AF patients. Bivariate analysis revealed that of those AF patients with a high CHADS2 score, 25.1% had received a warfarin prescription and 18.8 for those with a high CHA2DS2-VASc score. Logistic regression analysis yielded that patients with AF had higher odds of having a warfarin prescription if they had a high CHADS2 score, were Caucasian, lived in a zip code where < 20% of the population had a university education, and lived in a zip code where < 10% of the population were living in households with incomes below the federal poverty level. Further, the analysis yielded that patients with AF had lesser odds of having a warfarin prescription if they were ≥ 65 years of age, female, or had health insurance. Overall, warfarin appears to be under-prescribed for patients with AF regardless of the risk stratification system used. Based on the key findings of our study opportunities for interventions are present to improve guideline adherence in alignment with risk stratification for stroke prevention. Interprofessional health care teams can provide improved medical management of stroke prevention for patients with AF. These interprofessional health care teams should be constituted of primary care providers (physicians, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners), nurses (RN, LPN), and pharmacists (PharmD, RPh).

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 117 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 116 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 21%
Researcher 13 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 11%
Student > Postgraduate 10 9%
Student > Bachelor 10 9%
Other 18 15%
Unknown 29 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 15%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 10 9%
Psychology 4 3%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Other 13 11%
Unknown 34 29%
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 13 February 2017.
All research outputs
#15,826,194
of 23,509,982 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#5,707
of 7,830 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#261,513
of 426,754 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#117
of 164 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,509,982 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,830 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 426,754 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 164 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.