↓ Skip to main content

Use of a Computerized Medication Shared Decision Making Tool in Community Mental Health Settings: Impact on Psychotropic Medication Adherence

Overview of attention for article published in Community Mental Health Journal, July 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
56 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
156 Mendeley
Title
Use of a Computerized Medication Shared Decision Making Tool in Community Mental Health Settings: Impact on Psychotropic Medication Adherence
Published in
Community Mental Health Journal, July 2012
DOI 10.1007/s10597-012-9528-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bradley D. Stein, Jane N. Kogan, Mark J. Mihalyo, James Schuster, Patricia E. Deegan, Mark J. Sorbero, Robert E. Drake

Abstract

Healthcare reform emphasizes patient-centered care and shared decision-making. This study examined the impact on psychotropic adherence of a decision support center and computerized tool designed to empower and activate consumers prior to an outpatient medication management visit. Administrative data were used to identify 1,122 Medicaid-enrolled adults receiving psychotropic medication from community mental health centers over a two-year period from community mental health centers. Multivariate linear regression models were used to examine if tool users had higher rates of 180-day medication adherence than non-users. Older clients, Caucasian clients, those without recent hospitalizations, and those who were Medicaid-eligible due to disability had higher rates of 180-day medication adherence. After controlling for sociodemographics, clinical characteristics, baseline adherence, and secular changes over time, using the computerized tool did not affect adherence to psychotropic medications. The computerized decision tool did not affect medication adherence among clients in outpatient mental health clinics. Additional research should clarify the impact of decision-making tools on other important outcomes such as engagement, patient-prescriber communication, quality of care, self-management, and long-term clinical and functional outcomes.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Hungary 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 154 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 15%
Researcher 23 15%
Student > Master 18 12%
Student > Bachelor 17 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 9%
Other 19 12%
Unknown 41 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 30 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 25 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 19 12%
Social Sciences 13 8%
Computer Science 5 3%
Other 18 12%
Unknown 46 29%
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 03 August 2012.
All research outputs
#14,730,916
of 22,673,450 outputs
Outputs from Community Mental Health Journal
#764
of 1,278 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#101,231
of 164,673 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Community Mental Health Journal
#8
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,673,450 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,278 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 164,673 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.