Although there has been growing research on the burden of treatment, the current state of evidence on measuring this concept is unknown. This scoping review aimed to provide an overview of the current state of knowledge as well as clear recommendations for future research, within the context of chronic disease.
Four health-based databases, Scopus, CINAHL, Medline, and PsychInfo, were comprehensively searched for peer-reviewed articles published between the periods of 2000-2016. Titles and abstracts were independently read by two authors. All discrepancies between the authors were resolved by a third author. Data was extracted using a standardized proforma and a comparison analysis was used in order to explore the key treatment burden measures and categorize them into three groups.
Database searching identified 1458 potential papers. After removal of duplications, and irrelevant articles by title, 1102 abstracts remained. An additional 22 papers were added via snowball searching. In the end, 101 full papers were included in the review. A large number of the studies involved quantitative measures and conceptualizations of treatment burden (n = 64; 63.4%), and were conducted in North America (n = 49; 48.5%). There was significant variation in how the treatment burden experienced by those with chronic disease was operationalized and measured.
Despite significant work, there is still much ground to cover to comprehensively measure treatment burden for chronic disease. Greater qualitative focus, more research with cultural and minority populations, a larger emphasis on longitudinal studies and the consideration of the potential effects of "identity" on treatment burden, should be considered.
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science
5
2%
Other
27
13%
Unknown
91
44%
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 June 2025.
All research outputs
#2,423,565
of 30,050,033 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#268
of 2,657 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,418
of 330,026 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#6
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 30,050,033 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 2,657 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 330,026 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 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
