↓ Skip to main content

Comparing medication adherence tools scores and number of controlled diseases among low literacy patients discharged from a Brazilian cardiology ward

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
69 Mendeley
Title
Comparing medication adherence tools scores and number of controlled diseases among low literacy patients discharged from a Brazilian cardiology ward
Published in
International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy, November 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11096-016-0390-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Patrícia Carvalho Baruel Okumura, Lucas Miyake Okumura, Wálleri Christini Torelli Reis, Rangel Ray Godoy, Bianca de Oliveira Cata-Preta, Thais Teles de Souza, Maria Luiza Drechsel Fávero, Cassyano Januário Correr

Abstract

Background Adherence to prescribed drug therapy is associated with lower rates of cardiovascular causes of death. In view of the relevance for public health, it is important to understand the relation between medication adherence tools' scores, especially in low literacy patients discharged from a cardiology ward. Objectives We aimed to assess: (a) the association between number of controlled clinical conditions and adherence tools scores, and (b) the correlation between the scores of three instruments to assess adherence. Methods We conducted a prospective study and included patients discharged from a specialized cardiovascular ward in Brazil. The results of the Beliefs about Medicines questionnaire (BMQ), the Adherence to Refills and Medication Scale (ARMS) and the MedTake test were compared. Results Of 53 included patients, most of them were elderly, and did not complete primary school. On average, there were six health conditions per patient, where two of them were not controlled. ARMS was the only tool that was associated with number of controlled health conditions (r = -0.312, p < 0.05). Moreover, ARMS (average score 15.6 ± 3.4) had significant correlation with MEDTAKE (r = 0.535, p < 0.01) and BMQ (r = 0.38, p < 0.01). BMQ and MEDTAKE were also positively correlated (r = 0.311, p < 0.05). Conclusions Clinically, higher ARMS scores (>12) suggest assumed non-adherence. It is also negatively correlated with the number of controlled clinical conditions in low literacy elderlies with cardiovascular diseases.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 3 4%
Unknown 66 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 14%
Student > Bachelor 8 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Student > Postgraduate 5 7%
Other 11 16%
Unknown 13 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 25%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 15 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 19 28%
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 14 April 2017.
All research outputs
#18,541,268
of 22,963,381 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
#901
of 1,099 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#235,975
of 312,011 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
#16
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,963,381 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,099 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% 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 312,011 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.