↓ Skip to main content

Impact of a Universal Medication Schedule on rationalising and understanding of medication; a randomised controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Impact of a Universal Medication Schedule on rationalising and understanding of medication; a randomised controlled trial
Published in
Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, February 2018
DOI 10.1016/j.sapharm.2018.02.001
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eimear McManus, Suzanne McCarthy, Raymond Carson, Laura J. Sahm

Abstract

Patients frequently encounter difficulty understanding their prescription drug labels. This problem is more common in patients with limited health literacy (HL). Patients are not always counselled on their medicines by their doctor or pharmacist, therefore this label can be an important source of information. To assess the impact of a Universal Medication Schedule (UMS) on the knowledge and consolidation of a prescription drug regimen compared to standard pharmacy labelling. Seventy-six in-patients at a specialised rehabilitation hospital in Dublin, Ireland, were randomised into control (usual care) or intervention (UMS) groups. Adult in-patients, receiving oral medicines, who spoke English fluently were included. Patients with dexterity issues documented, or those unable to provide written informed consent were excluded. The Newest Vital Sign (NVS) and validated HL screening questions measured HL. A five medication regimen was presented to each participant, and they were asked questions to assess their understanding of the medication regimen and were asked to dose out the medications into a 24 h dosette box. Data analysis was conducted using SPSS®(IBM Corp.), V23. The majority of participants (n = 76) were Irish (89.5%), male (63.2%) and the median age of participants was 49 years. 46% of participants had a third level qualification, however 14.4% of participants had not completed any formal school examinations. Those in the UMS group displayed better understanding of the prescription regimen than those in the usual care group, but this was not statistically significant. (Mean score 9.28 vs 8.81, p = 0.135). Subgroup analysis did not find any additional benefit of UMS in those with limited health literacy (Mean score 8.56 vs 9.06, p = 0.514) but rather in those who said that they found instructions on tablets hard to understand (Mean score 10.00 vs 8.43, p = 0.019). A UMS approach may improve patients understanding and use of their medicines.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 52 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 13%
Student > Master 6 12%
Researcher 5 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Other 10 19%
Unknown 16 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 19%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 8%
Environmental Science 2 4%
Psychology 2 4%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 19 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 February 2018.
All research outputs
#15,097,241
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy
#1,165
of 1,701 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#236,735
of 453,541 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy
#27
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,701 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 453,541 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 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.