↓ Skip to main content

Co-occurring reasons for medication nonadherence within subgroups of patients with hyperlipidemia

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Behavioral Medicine, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 Mendeley
Title
Co-occurring reasons for medication nonadherence within subgroups of patients with hyperlipidemia
Published in
Journal of Behavioral Medicine, July 2018
DOI 10.1007/s10865-018-9954-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dan V. Blalock, Hayden B. Bosworth, Bryce B. Reeve, Corrine I. Voils

Abstract

Medication nonadherence is a significant clinical problem among individuals taking statins. Poor adherence is often attributable to several reasons, yet most adherence interventions target a single reason. Baseline data were examined from a randomized clinical trial of 236 patients with hyperlipidemia. A latent class analysis was then performed on patients reporting any nonadherence (n = 109). A 4-class solution provided the most optimal fit and differentiation of classes. Class 1 (N = 59, 54%) included patients who reported occasionally forgetting. Class 2 (N = 16, 14%) represented patients who were concerned about side effects. Class 3 (N = 17, 16%) represented patients who reported out-of-routine life events as contributing to nonadherence. Class 4 (N = 17, 16%) represented patients who endorsed a large number reasons indiscriminately. Class membership was almost uniformly unrelated to any patient demographic factors or treatment arm. Each cluster of reasons defining these patients may be best addressed through different intervention strategies.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 20 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 15%
Researcher 2 10%
Other 1 5%
Student > Bachelor 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 9 45%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 15%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 10%
Psychology 1 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Social Sciences 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 11 55%
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 24 July 2018.
All research outputs
#14,421,028
of 23,096,849 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Behavioral Medicine
#775
of 1,081 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#185,701
of 329,152 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Behavioral Medicine
#7
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,096,849 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,081 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 329,152 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.