↓ Skip to main content

Barriers and Facilitators of Intensivists’ Adherence to Hyperinsulinemia-Euglycemia Therapy in the Treatment of Calcium Channel Blocker Poisoning

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Medical Toxicology, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
Title
Barriers and Facilitators of Intensivists’ Adherence to Hyperinsulinemia-Euglycemia Therapy in the Treatment of Calcium Channel Blocker Poisoning
Published in
Journal of Medical Toxicology, July 2018
DOI 10.1007/s13181-018-0676-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eric Brassard, Patrick Archambault, Guillaume Lacombe, Maude St-Onge

Abstract

Adherence to poison center (PC) recommendations for the management of calcium channel blocker (CCB) poisoning is inconsistent. This study aimed to identify behaviors that determine adherence to hyperinsulinemia-euglycemia therapy (HIET) for CCB poisoning. Semistructured interviews were conducted involving a convenience sample of 18 intensivists. Interview responses were analyzed using the theoretical domains framework (TDF) to identify relevant domains influencing physician adherence to HIET. Two independent reviewers performed qualitative content analysis of the interview transcripts to identify beliefs influencing decisions to initiate HIET. Initially, beliefs were classified and frequencies reported as being likely to facilitate, likely to decrease, or unlikely to affect adherence. Subsequently, beliefs were linked to a domain within the TDF. Based on the potential impact on physician behavior and frequency of reported behavior, we selected the most relevant domains likely to influence physician adherence to HIET for CCB poisoning. Positive beliefs were identified in the following domains: "behavioral regulation" (e.g., algorithm for adjustment of perfusions), "belief about capabilities" (e.g., confidence about being able to manage HIET), "belief about consequences" (e.g., fear of clinical deterioration), and "reinforcement" (e.g., clinical instability). Negative beliefs were identified in the following domains as "nature of behavior" (e.g., preference for vasopressors over HIET) and "environmental context and resources" (e.g., accessing dextrose 50% and increased nurse workload). This qualitative study identified potential behavioral targets for future implementation strategies to address to improve adherence to HIET.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 37%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 11%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Researcher 2 7%
Other 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 8 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 7 26%
Psychology 4 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 7%
Decision Sciences 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 10 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 27 July 2018.
All research outputs
#18,645,475
of 23,098,660 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Toxicology
#610
of 673 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#254,209
of 330,303 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Toxicology
#12
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,098,660 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 673 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.6. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% 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 330,303 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% 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 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.