↓ Skip to main content

Prevalence and predictors of physician recommendations for medication adjustment in bipolar disorder treatment

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Affective Disorders, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
46 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.
Article details
Title
Prevalence and predictors of physician recommendations for medication adjustment in bipolar disorder treatment
Published in
Journal of Affective Disorders, June 2018
DOI 10.1016/j.jad.2018.06.012
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Successful medication management for bipolar disorder requires clinicians to monitor and adjust regimens as needed, to achieve maximum effectiveness and patient adherence. This study aims to measure the prevalence of indications for medication adjustment at visits for bipolar disorder treatment; the frequency with which physicians recommend medication adjustments; and how strongly the indications predict the adjustments. Data included 3,094 visits for 457 patients in Bipolar CHOICE, a comparative effectiveness study that compared treatment with lithium versus quetiapine. A set of indications for adjustment was matched to reports of whether the physician recommended a medication adjustment at that visit, and what type. Associations between indication and adjustment were examined using bivariate tests and hierarchical logistic mixed effects models. Medication adjustment was recommended at 63% of the visits where one of the indications was present, and at 53% of all visits. In multivariable analyses, adjustment was more likely to be recommended if there was an indication of non-response or side effects, for patients who started on quetiapine rather than lithium, or for patients who were female, married, employed or more educated. The study's cross-sectional design implies that observed associations could result from confounding variables. Also, the CHOICE trial placed certain restrictions on physicians' medication choices, although this is not likely to have resulted in major alterations of prescribing patterns. Clinical inertia may help explain the lack of any adjustment recommendation at 37% of the visits where one of the indications was present. Other explanations could also apply, such as watchful waiting.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 46 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 15%
Researcher 6 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 9%
Student > Master 3 7%
Student > Postgraduate 3 7%
Other 9 20%
Unknown 14 30%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 13%
Psychology 5 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Other 8 17%
Unknown 17 37%
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 05 June 2018.
All research outputs
#22,767,715
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Affective Disorders
#9,044
of 10,147 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#301,294
of 343,126 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Affective Disorders
#149
of 206 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,147 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 343,126 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 206 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.