↓ Skip to main content

Implications of a clinical medication review and a pharmaceutical care plan of polypharmacy patients with a cardiovascular disorder

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
176 Mendeley
Title
Implications of a clinical medication review and a pharmaceutical care plan of polypharmacy patients with a cardiovascular disorder
Published in
International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy, April 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11096-016-0281-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marlies M. E. Geurts, Roy E. Stewart, Jacobus R. B. J. Brouwers, Pieter A. de Graeff, Johan J. de Gier

Abstract

Background A clinical medication review, including patient involvement, is expected to improve pharmaceutical care. Objective To determine whether a clinical medication review followed by a pharmaceutical care plan decreases the number of potential drug-related problems (DRPs) and pharmaceutical care issues (PCIs) and leads to a positive effect on relevant clinical and laboratory parameters for elderly cardiovascular patients with multiple drug use. Setting Randomized controlled trial in eight primary care settings in the Netherlands. Method Elderly polypharmacy patients with a cardiovascular disorder were randomized into two groups. Intervention patients received a clinical medication review, followed by a pharmaceutical care plan developed in cooperation between these patients' pharmacists and general practitioners (GPs), and agreed to by the patients. Control patients received care as usual. Patient data were collected at the start of the study (t = 0) and after 1-year follow-up (t = 1). Main outcome measure Decrease in potential DRPs and pharmaceutical PCIs, improvement of clinical and laboratory parameters. Results 512 patients were included. An average of 2.2 potential DRPs and pharmaceutical PCIs were defined per patient in the intervention group. After 1-year follow-up, 47.2 % of potential DRPs and PCIs were resolved. In total, 156 care interventions were proposed (0.9/patient), 108 of which were implemented after 1 year (69.2 %). For control-group patients, a total of 47 proposed care interventions were documented for 255 patients (0.2/patient); after 1 year, 43 had been implemented (91.5 %). The study intervention (p < 0.001) and the number of medicines used (p = 0.030) had a significant effect on the number of interventions proposed. Small biochemical changes in cardiovascular risk factors did occur, but the differences were small and not considered clinically relevant. Conclusion The integrated use of a clinical medication review with a pharmaceutical care plan in a primary care setting supports the detection of and decrease in DRPs and pharmaceutical PCIs in almost half of the patients. Its benefit in terms of control of cardiovascular risk factors and safety parameters was relatively low. Risk stratification might be necessary to decide which patients might benefit most from this type of intervention.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 176 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 173 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 35 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 12%
Student > Bachelor 20 11%
Researcher 17 10%
Other 9 5%
Other 34 19%
Unknown 40 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 53 30%
Medicine and Dentistry 34 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 10%
Engineering 4 2%
Psychology 3 2%
Other 20 11%
Unknown 44 25%
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 02 October 2016.
All research outputs
#14,563,539
of 23,323,574 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
#741
of 1,121 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#162,626
of 302,271 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
#12
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,323,574 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 1,121 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. 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 302,271 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.