↓ Skip to main content

Patient knowledge and adherence to maintenance hemodialysis: an International comparison study

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical and Experimental Nephrology, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 Mendeley
Title
Patient knowledge and adherence to maintenance hemodialysis: an International comparison study
Published in
Clinical and Experimental Nephrology, November 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10157-017-1512-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kana N. Miyata, Jenny I. Shen, Yasuhide Nishio, Manabu Haneda, Kobena A. Dadzie, Nijal R. Sheth, Renjiro Kuriyama, Chika Matsuzawa, Ken Tachibana, Nikolas B. Harbord, James F. Winchester

Abstract

Non-adherence to hemodialysis (HD) is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. In this cross-sectional study, we compared correlates and rates of non-adherence between the US and Japan to determine if differences in patient knowledge about HD might account for international variation in adherence. We evaluated 100 US and 116 Japanese patients on maintenance HD. Patient knowledge was scored based on the identification of their vascular access, dry weight, cause of kidney disease, and ≥ 3 phosphorus- and potassium-rich foods. Patients were considered non-adherent if they missed > 3% of HD sessions in 3 months. 23% of the US and none of the Japanese patients were non-adherent. Using logistic regression, we found that in the US non-adherence was more common in black patients [Odds ratio (OR) 3.98; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.42-11.22], while high school graduates (OR 0.20; 95% CI 0.05-0.81) and those on the transplant waiting list (OR 0.25; 95% CI 0.083-0.72) were less likely to miss their treatments. There was no significant association between knowledge and non-adherence in the US. However, Japanese patients had significantly higher levels of HD knowledge than US patients after adjusting for age (p < 0.001). Age-adjusted HD knowledge was higher and non-adherence rates were lower in Japan vs. the US. However, because of the unexpected finding of 100% adherence in Japan, we were unable to formally test whether knowledge was significantly associated with adherence across both countries. Further research is needed to understand the reasons behind the higher non-adherence rates in the US.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 50 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 18%
Other 5 10%
Researcher 4 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Student > Postgraduate 3 6%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 19 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 16 32%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 16%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Psychology 1 2%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 20 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 07 February 2018.
All research outputs
#14,405,036
of 23,849,058 outputs
Outputs from Clinical and Experimental Nephrology
#340
of 769 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#229,009
of 442,930 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical and Experimental Nephrology
#4
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,849,058 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 769 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 442,930 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.