↓ Skip to main content

How to Screen for Non-Adherence to Antihypertensive Therapy

Overview of attention for article published in Current Hypertension Reports, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
65 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
How to Screen for Non-Adherence to Antihypertensive Therapy
Published in
Current Hypertension Reports, November 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11906-016-0697-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pankaj Gupta, Prashanth Patel, Robert Horne, Heather Buchanan, Bryan Williams, Maciej Tomaszewski

Abstract

The quality of assessment of non-adherence to treatment in hypertensive is poor. Within this review, we discuss the different methods used to assess adherence to blood-pressure-lowering medications in hypertension patients. Subjective reports such as physicians' perceptions are inaccurate, and questionnaires completed by patients tend to overreport adherence and show a low diagnostic specificity. Indirect objective methods such as pharmacy database records can be useful, but they are limited by the robustness of the recorded data. Electronic medication monitoring devices are accurate but usually track adherence to only a single medication and can be expensive. Overall, the fundamental issue with indirect objective measures is that they do not fully confirm ingestion of antihypertensive medications. Detection of antihypertensive medications in body fluids using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry is currently, in our view, the most robust and clinically useful method to assess non-adherence to blood-pressure-lowering treatment. It is particularly helpful in patients presenting with resistant, refractory or uncontrolled hypertension despite the optimal therapy. We recommend using this diagnostic strategy to detect non-adherence alongside a no-blame approach tailoring support to address the perceptions (e.g. beliefs about the illness and treatment) and practicalities (e.g. capability and resources) influencing motivation and ability to adhere.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters 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 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 64 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 22%
Student > Bachelor 12 18%
Researcher 8 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 12%
Student > Postgraduate 6 9%
Other 17 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 42%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 14 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 14%
Unspecified 6 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 6%
Other 5 8%

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 07 July 2017.
All research outputs
#9,591,685
of 12,488,170 outputs
Outputs from Current Hypertension Reports
#297
of 466 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#232,391
of 359,034 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Hypertension Reports
#4
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,488,170 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 466 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 359,034 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.