| Title |
Design and application of a medication assessment tool for secondary prevention of stroke
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy, July 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11096-017-0515-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Marise Gauci, Francesca Wirth, Liberato Camilleri, Lilian M. Azzopardi, Anthony Serracino-Inglott |
| Abstract |
Background Optimisation of drug therapy is essential in the care of older persons and may be facilitated by application of medication assessment tools (MATs). Objective To design, psychometrically evaluate and apply an innovative MAT for secondary prevention of ischaemic stroke with particular relevance to older persons. Method Review criteria were selected from clinical practice guidelines and MAT-CVA was developed, validated and tested for reliability and feasibility. MAT-CVA was applied to 150 patients with a diagnosis of ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack admitted to a rehabilitation hospital. Results MAT-CVA consists of 17 criteria sectioned into antithrombotic, lipid lowering, antihypertensive and glycaemic therapy. Content validity was demonstrated for all criteria. Reliability was confirmed with kappa values of 0.80 for both inter- and intraobserver agreements. Mean application time for the two observers was 5.55 and 6.56 min. Adherence to applicable criteria was 55% and justified non-adherence was 22.3%. Non-adherence was predominantly evident for prescription of anticoagulation in concurrent atrial fibrillation (36.4%), thiazide diuretics ± angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors for hypertension (26.8%) and dipyridamole at the recommended dose (24.0%). Conclusion Application of MAT-CVA indicated good overall adherence and identified gaps in clinical performance which may be targeted to enhance drug therapy optimisation. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 43 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 7 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 16% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 12% |
| Researcher | 5 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 6 | 14% |
| Unknown | 10 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 30% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 14% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 5 | 12% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 5% |
| Design | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Unknown | 11 | 26% |
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 16 July 2017.
All research outputs
#3,825,485
of 23,001,641 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
#179
of 1,101 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,429
of 316,684 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
#3
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,001,641 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 1,101 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 83% 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 316,684 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 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.