| Title |
Benefits of deprescribing on patients’ adherence to medications
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy, November 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11096-013-9871-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Emily Reeve, Michael D. Wiese |
| Abstract |
Deprescribing is a holistic process of medication cessation that encompasses gaining a comprehensive medication list, identifying potentially inappropriate medications, deciding if the identified medication can be ceased, planning the withdrawal regimen and monitoring, support and follow-up. It is currently being investigated as a mechanism to reduce unnecessary or redundant medications. However, given the systematic and patient-centred nature of the deprescribing process, it is possible that it may also confer additional benefits such as improving adherence to medications, even if there is no net reduction in overall medication use. Specifically, deprescribing may improve adherence via reducing polypharmacy, reducing the financial costs associated with medication taking, increasing the patient's medication knowledge through education, increasing patient engagement in medication management and resolution of adverse drug reactions. More research into deprescribing must be conducted to establish if these potential benefits can be realised, in addition to establishing any negative consequences. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Grenada | 1 | 14% |
| Argentina | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 5 | 71% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 86% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 121 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 119 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 19 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 19 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 27 | 22% |
| Unknown | 22 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 34 | 28% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 33 | 27% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 10% |
| Psychology | 4 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 8 | 7% |
| Unknown | 29 | 24% |
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 06 December 2016.
All research outputs
#4,045,625
of 22,731,677 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
#192
of 1,076 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,786
of 301,990 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
#10
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,731,677 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,076 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 301,990 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 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 69% of its contemporaries.