↓ Skip to main content

The effect of a brief action planning intervention on adherence to double-blind study medication, compared to a standard trial protocol, in the Atorvastatin in Factorial with Omega EE90 Risk…

Overview of attention for article published in Diabetes Research & Clinical Practice, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 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
The effect of a brief action planning intervention on adherence to double-blind study medication, compared to a standard trial protocol, in the Atorvastatin in Factorial with Omega EE90 Risk Reduction in Diabetes (AFORRD) clinical trial: A cluster randomised sub-study
Published in
Diabetes Research & Clinical Practice, October 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.diabres.2016.07.004
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrew J. Farmer, Jason Oke, Wendy Hardeman, Lynne Tucker, Stephen Sutton, Ann-Louise Kinmonth, Simon Griffin, Rury R. Holman

Abstract

Clinical trial patients are highly motivated but may encounter difficulty in taking study medication regularly when treatment burden is substantial. We assessed a brief behavioural intervention, given in addition to a standard trial protocol. We performed a two-arm adherence sub-study within a twelve-month randomised controlled drug trial evaluating the impact of statin and/or omega-3 EE90 treatment in 800 patients with type 2 diabetes. Fifty-nine United Kingdom general practices were cluster-randomised to action-planning or control groups. The former delivered an initial written exercise prompting participants to formulate action-plans to take study medication regularly, with brief nurse encouragement to use action-plans at later visits, whilst the latter followed the standard trial protocol. The primary outcome was proportion of days on which study medication were taken as intended measured by electronic medication containers. Adjusted mean (95% CI) proportion of days with medication taken as intended was 79.3% (76.3-82.3%)for the 30 action-planning practices (321 participants), compared with 78.5% (75.8-81.1%) for 27 control group practices (426 participants, with a mean intervention effect of 0.9%, 95% CI -3.1% to +4.9%, p=0.67). Adjusted odds ratios for ⩾80% trial medication adherence for action-planning compared with control practices were 1.29 (0.90-1.84) and 1.38 (0.96-1.99) respectively. Low-intensity action-planning interventions used alone are unlikely to have a clinically important impact on medication adherence, particularly in a clinical trial setting. These findings, do not exclude their contribution, as part of a multifactorial intervention, to improving treatment adherence. ISRCTN number 76737502.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Netherlands 1 2%
Unknown 52 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 19%
Unspecified 8 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 13%
Researcher 6 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 9%
Other 18 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 33%
Unspecified 10 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 15%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 11%
Psychology 6 11%
Other 6 11%

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 16 March 2017.
All research outputs
#7,671,877
of 12,277,415 outputs
Outputs from Diabetes Research & Clinical Practice
#1,028
of 1,623 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#146,519
of 264,916 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Diabetes Research & Clinical Practice
#21
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,277,415 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,623 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 264,916 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.