↓ Skip to main content

Patients’ and physicians’ perceptions and attitudes about oral anticoagulation and atrial fibrillation: a qualitative systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Family Practice, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 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
Patients’ and physicians’ perceptions and attitudes about oral anticoagulation and atrial fibrillation: a qualitative systematic review
Published in
BMC Family Practice, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12875-016-0574-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gemma Mas Dalmau, Elisenda Sant Arderiu, María Belén Enfedaque Montes, Ivan Solà, Sandra Pequeño Saco, Pablo Alonso Coello

Abstract

Oral anticoagulant therapy reduces the risk of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation, but many patients are still not prescribed this therapy. The causes of underuse of vitamin K antagonists oral anticoagulants are not clear but could be related, in part, to patients' and physicians' perceptions and attitudes towards the benefits and downsides of this treatment. The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate and synthesize patients' and physicians' perceptions and attitudes towards the benefits and downsides of vitamin K antagonist, in order to explore potential factors related with its underuse. We included studies that used qualitative or mixed methods and focused on patients' and/or physicians' perceptions and attitudes towards oral anticoagulation. We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, ISI WoK, and PsycINFO from their inception until May 2013. Two reviewers independently assessed the quality of the included studies and synthesized results using a thematic analysis approach. We included a total of nine studies. In four studies, the quality assessed was excellent and in five was moderate. We identified three themes that were of interest to both physicians and patients: information to reinforce anticoagulation use, balance of benefits and downsides, roles in decision-making and therapy management. Three additional themes were of interest to patients: knowledge and understanding, impact on daily life, and satisfaction with therapy. The main difficulties with the use of anticoagulant treatment according to physicians were the perceived uncertainty, need of individualised decision-making, and the feeling of delegated responsibility as their main concerns. The main factors for patients were the lack of information and understanding. Physicians' and patients' perceptions and attitudes might be potential factors in the underuse of treatment with vitamin K antagonists. Improving the quality and usability of clinical guidelines, developing tools to help with the decision-making, enhancing coordination between primary care and hospital care, and improving information provided to patients could help improve the underuse of anticoagulation.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 68 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 15%
Other 8 12%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Student > Master 6 9%
Other 14 21%
Unknown 10 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 50%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Computer Science 2 3%
Other 10 15%
Unknown 11 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 2018.
All research outputs
#870,480
of 12,662,564 outputs
Outputs from BMC Family Practice
#102
of 1,266 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,584
of 340,870 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Family Practice
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,662,564 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,266 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 340,870 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 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them