↓ Skip to main content

Factors associated with intentional and unintentional non-adherence to adjuvant endocrine therapy following breast cancer

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Cancer Care, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 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
Factors associated with intentional and unintentional non-adherence to adjuvant endocrine therapy following breast cancer
Published in
European Journal of Cancer Care, November 2016
DOI 10.1111/ecc.12601
Pubmed ID
Authors

J. Brett, D. Fenlon, M. Boulton, N.J. Hulbert-Williams, F.M. Walter, P. Donnelly, B. Lavery, A. Morgan, C. Morris, E. Watson

Abstract

Adherence to adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) following breast cancer is known to be suboptimal despite its known efficacy in reducing recurrence and mortality. This study aims to investigate factors associated with non-adherence and inform the development of interventions to support women and promote adherence. A questionnaire survey to measure level of adherence, side effects experienced, beliefs about medicine, support received and socio-demographic details was sent to 292 women 2-4 years post breast cancer diagnosis. Differences between non-adherers and adherers to AET were explored, and factors associated with intentional and unintentional non-adherence are reported. Approximately one quarter of respondents, 46 (22%), were non-adherers, comprising 29 (14%) intentional non-adherers and 17 (8%) unintentional non-adherers. Factors significantly associated with intentional non-adherence were the presence of side effects (p < .03), greater concerns about AET (p < .001) and a lower perceived necessity to take AET (p < .001). Half of the sample (105/211) reported that side effects had a moderate or high impact on their quality of life. Factors associated with unintentional non-adherence were younger age (<65) (p < .001), post-secondary education (p = .046) and paid employment (p = .031). There are distinct differences between intentional non-adherence and unintentional non-adherence. Differentiation between the two types of non-adherence may help tailor support and advice interventions.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 42 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 19%
Student > Bachelor 7 17%
Unspecified 6 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 14%
Lecturer 4 10%
Other 11 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 12 29%
Unspecified 10 24%
Psychology 6 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 12%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 5%
Other 7 17%

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 03 December 2016.
All research outputs
#10,943,213
of 12,348,212 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Cancer Care
#638
of 719 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#276,561
of 340,993 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Cancer Care
#37
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,348,212 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 719 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. 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 340,993 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 42 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.