| Title |
Advantages to Using Social-Behavioral Models of Medication Adherence in Research and Practice
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of General Internal Medicine, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11606-017-4197-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
K. Rivet Amico, M. Mugavero, Marie A. Krousel-Wood, Hayden B. Bosworth, Jessica S. Merlin |
| Abstract |
Achieving and sustaining high levels of adherence to medication regimens is essential to improving health outcomes, but continues to be a challenge for a sizable proportion of patients. Decades of research suggests that medication adherence is determined by a complex constellation of factors. Social-behavioral science research has focused on creating frameworks that identify which contextual, personal, social, or drug-related factors appear to most influence adherence. Comprehensive models of adherence propose specific structural relationships between these factors that can be used to plan for, implement, and monitor programs that seek to optimize adherence. The use of social-behavioral models offers multiple advantages in both practice and research environments; however, the breadth and depth of these models can deter many from engaging in this important exercise. To promote the use of social-behavioral frameworks and models of adherence, we provide a brief overview of the advantages in using a social-behavioral lens in adherence work, a sampling of models used in HIV medication adherence research that have high generalizability to other conditions, and practical guidance for grounding adherence promotion strategies in evidence informed by social-behavioral science research. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 50% |
| Unknown | 3 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 17% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 158 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 158 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 24 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 19 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 18 | 11% |
| Researcher | 15 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 12 | 8% |
| Other | 28 | 18% |
| Unknown | 42 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 26 | 16% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 15% |
| Social Sciences | 14 | 9% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 10 | 6% |
| Psychology | 9 | 6% |
| Other | 21 | 13% |
| Unknown | 54 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 30 January 2018.
All research outputs
#7,614,857
of 23,971,017 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#4,100
of 7,827 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#146,003
of 446,109 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#44
of 88 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,971,017 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,827 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.9. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 446,109 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 88 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 50% of its contemporaries.