↓ Skip to main content

An Electronic Adherence Measurement Intervention to Reduce Clinical Inertia in the Treatment of Uncontrolled Hypertension: The MATCH Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of General Internal Medicine, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
10 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
120 Mendeley
Title
An Electronic Adherence Measurement Intervention to Reduce Clinical Inertia in the Treatment of Uncontrolled Hypertension: The MATCH Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine, June 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11606-016-3757-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ian M. Kronish, Nathalie Moise, Thomas McGinn, Yan Quan, William Chaplin, Benjamin D. Gallagher, Karina W. Davidson

Abstract

To appropriately manage uncontrolled hypertension, clinicians must decide whether blood pressure (BP) is above goal due to a need for additional medication or to medication nonadherence. Yet, clinicians are poor judges of adherence, and uncertainty about adherence may promote inertia with respect to medication modification. We aimed to determine the effect of sharing electronically-measured adherence data with clinicians on the management of uncontrolled hypertension. This was a cluster randomized trial. Twenty-four primary care providers (12 intervention, 12 usual care; cluster units) and 100 patients with uncontrolled hypertension (65 intervention, 35 usual care) were included in the study. At one visit per patient, clinicians in the intervention group received a report summarizing electronically measured adherence to the BP regimen and recommended clinical actions. Clinicians in the control group did not receive a report. The primary outcome was the proportion of visits with appropriate clinical management (i.e., treatment intensification among adherent patients and adherence counseling among nonadherent patients). Secondary outcomes included patient-rated quality of care and communication during the visit. The proportion of visits with appropriate clinical management was higher in the intervention group than the control group (45 out of 65; 69 %) versus (12 out of 35; 34 %; p = 0.001). A higher proportion of adherent patients in the intervention group had their regimen intensified (p = 0.01), and a higher proportion of nonadherent patients in the intervention group received adherence counseling (p = 0.005). Patients in the intervention group were more likely to give their clinician high ratings on quality of care (p = 0.05), and on measures of patient-centered (p = 0.001) and collaborative communication (p = 0.02). Providing clinicians with electronically-measured antihypertensive adherence reports reduces inertia in the management of uncontrolled hypertension. NCT01257347 ; http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/ NCT01257347.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 120 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Mexico 1 <1%
Unknown 119 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 15%
Student > Bachelor 18 15%
Researcher 9 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 7%
Student > Postgraduate 7 6%
Other 23 19%
Unknown 37 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 18%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 11 9%
Psychology 4 3%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Other 14 12%
Unknown 41 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 02 April 2017.
All research outputs
#1,927,019
of 24,041,016 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#1,500
of 7,838 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,114
of 344,679 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#25
of 102 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,041,016 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,838 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 344,679 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 102 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.