↓ Skip to main content

Risk Perceptions in Diabetic Patients Who Have Experienced Adverse Events: Implications for Patient Involvement in Regulatory Decisions

Overview of attention for article published in Pharmaceutical Medicine, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#39 of 149)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 Mendeley
Title
Risk Perceptions in Diabetic Patients Who Have Experienced Adverse Events: Implications for Patient Involvement in Regulatory Decisions
Published in
Pharmaceutical Medicine, July 2017
DOI 10.1007/s40290-017-0200-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mikkel Lindskov Sachs, Sofia Kälvemark Sporrong, Morten Colding-Jørgensen, Sven Frokjaer, Per Helboe, Katarina Jelic, Susanne Kaae

Abstract

Increasingly, patients are expected to influence decisions previously reserved for regulatory agencies, pharmaceutical companies, and healthcare professionals. Individual patients have previously represented their patient population when rare, serious adverse events (AEs) were weighed as part of a benefit-risk assessment. However, the degree of heterogeneity of the patient population is critical for how accurately they can be represented by individuals. This study aims to explore patients' risk perception of rare, serious adverse effects of medicines with regard to blood glucose-lowering antidiabetics used by the individual patient. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 18 patients with diabetes with self-perceived serious, but not necessarily rare, AEs (e.g. stroke or valve or bypass surgery). The interviews explored the patients' history of disease, perceptions of the terms rare and serious, and overall levels of risk aversion. A thematic analysis of the interviews, including a consensus discussion, was carried out. Interestingly, respondents rarely made a clear distinction between medicines-induced AEs and complications related to disease progression. Concerns regarding AEs were apparently diverse but were systematically related to the personal experiences of the respondents. Respondents routinely ignored information about possible rare, serious AEs, unless it could be related to personal experience. In the absence of experience, concerns were focused on common and less serious AEs, thus disregarding rare and more serious events. The study suggests that experience of AEs, related to either medicines or disease, constitutes an important factor of patient risk perception. We therefore propose that serious adverse experiences should be added to the traditional panel of socioeconomic factors that are accounted for when patients are invited to give input on regulatory decisions.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 56 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 10 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 13%
Researcher 7 13%
Student > Master 6 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Other 11 20%
Unknown 12 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 20%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 7%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Psychology 3 5%
Other 10 18%
Unknown 11 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 20 August 2021.
All research outputs
#6,300,111
of 22,999,744 outputs
Outputs from Pharmaceutical Medicine
#39
of 149 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#100,257
of 314,944 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pharmaceutical Medicine
#1
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,999,744 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 149 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 314,944 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them