↓ Skip to main content

Non-adherence to telemedicine interventions for drug users: systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Revista de Saúde Pública, June 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
98 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Non-adherence to telemedicine interventions for drug users: systematic review
Published in
Revista de Saúde Pública, June 2014
DOI 10.1590/s0034-8910.2014048005130
Pubmed ID
Authors

Taís de Campos Moreira, Luciana Signor, Luciana Rizzieri Figueiró, Simone Fernandes, Cassandra Borges Bortolon, Mariana Canellas Benchaya, Maristela Ferigolo, Helena MT Barros

Abstract

OBJECTIVE To estimate rates of non-adherence to telemedicine strategies aimed at treating drug addiction. METHODS A systematic review was conducted of randomized controlled trials investigating different telemedicine treatment methods for drug addiction. The following databases were consulted between May 18, 2012 and June 21, 2012: PubMed, PsycINFO, SciELO, Wiley (The Cochrane Library), Embase, Clinical trials and Google Scholar. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation was used to evaluate the quality of the studies. The criteria evaluated were: appropriate sequence of data generation, allocation concealment, blinding, description of losses and exclusions and analysis by intention to treat. There were 274 studies selected, of which 20 were analyzed. RESULTS Non-adherence rates varied between 15.0% and 70.0%. The interventions evaluated were of at least three months duration and, although they all used telemedicine as support, treatment methods differed. Regarding the quality of the studies, the values also varied from very poor to high quality. High quality studies showed better adherence rates, as did those using more than one technique of intervention and a limited treatment time. Mono-user studies showed better adherence rates than poly-user studies. CONCLUSIONS Rates of non-adherence to treatment involving telemedicine on the part of users of psycho-active substances differed considerably, depending on the country, the intervention method, follow-up time and substances used. Using more than one technique of intervention, short duration of treatment and the type of substance used by patients appear to facilitate adherence.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 97 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 11%
Researcher 10 10%
Student > Bachelor 7 7%
Other 19 19%
Unknown 19 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 33%
Psychology 12 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 12%
Social Sciences 5 5%
Computer Science 4 4%
Other 11 11%
Unknown 22 22%
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 June 2015.
All research outputs
#19,962,154
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Revista de Saúde Pública
#868
of 1,138 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#167,663
of 241,031 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Revista de Saúde Pública
#9
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,138 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 241,031 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.