↓ Skip to main content

Educational and behavioural interventions for anticoagulant therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
8 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
223 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
Educational and behavioural interventions for anticoagulant therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008600.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Danielle E Clarkesmith, Helen M Pattison, Phyo H Khaing, Deirdre A Lane

Abstract

Current guidelines recommend oral anticoagulation therapy for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) with one or more risk factors for stroke; however, anticoagulation control (time in therapeutic range (TTR)) with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) is dependent on many factors. Educational and behavioural interventions may impact patients' ability to maintain their international normalised ratio (INR) control. This is an updated version of the original review first published in 2013. To evaluate the effects of educational and behavioural interventions for oral anticoagulation therapy (OAT) on TTR in patients with AF. We updated searches from the previous review by searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) in The Cochrane Library (January 2016, Issue 1), MEDLINE Ovid (1949 to February week 1 2016), EMBASE Classic + EMBASE Ovid (1980 to Week 7 2016), PsycINFO Ovid (1806 to Week 1 February 2016) and CINAHL Plus with Full Text EBSCO (1937 to 16/02/2016). We applied no language restrictions. We included randomised controlled trials evaluating the effect of any educational and behavioural intervention compared with usual care, no intervention, or intervention in combination with other self-management techniques among adults with AF who were eligible for, or currently receiving, OAT. Two of the review authors independently selected studies and extracted data. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We included outcome data on TTR, decision conflict (patient's uncertainty in making health-related decisions), percentage of INRs in the therapeutic range, major bleeding, stroke and thromboembolic events, patient knowledge, patient satisfaction, quality of life (QoL), beliefs about medication, illness perceptions, and anxiety and depression. We pooled data for three outcomes - TTR, anxiety and depression, and decision conflict - and reported mean differences (MD). Where insufficient data were present to conduct a meta-analysis, we reported effect sizes and confidence intervals (CI) from the included studies. We evaluated the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. Eleven trials with a total of 2246 AF patients (ranging from 14 to 712 by study) were included within the review. Studies included education, decision aids, and self-monitoring plus education interventions. The effect of self-monitoring plus education on TTR was uncertain compared with usual care (MD 6.31, 95% CI -5.63 to 18.25, I(2) = 0%, 2 trials, 69 participants, very low-quality evidence). We found small but positive effects of education on anxiety (MD -0.62, 95% CI -1.21 to -0.04, I(2) = 0%, 2 trials, 587 participants, low-quality evidence) and depression (MD -0.74, 95% CI -1.34 to -0.14, I(2) = 0%, 2 trials, 587 participants, low-quality evidence) compared with usual care. The effect of decision aids on decision conflict favoured usual care (MD -0.1, 95% CI -0.17 to -0.02, I(2) = 0%, 2 trials, 721 participants, low-quality evidence). This review demonstrates that there is insufficient evidence to draw definitive conclusions regarding the impact of educational or behavioural interventions on TTR in AF patients receiving OAT. Thus, more trials are needed to examine the impact of interventions on anticoagulation control in AF patients and the mechanisms by which they are successful. It is also important to explore the psychological implications for patients suffering from this long-term chronic condition.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 223 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 220 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 45 20%
Student > Master 40 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 37 17%
Researcher 30 13%
Student > Bachelor 26 12%
Other 45 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 66 30%
Unspecified 52 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 35 16%
Psychology 27 12%
Social Sciences 16 7%
Other 27 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 19 October 2018.
All research outputs
#2,190,665
of 12,813,846 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,015
of 10,429 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,779
of 258,058 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#146
of 253 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,813,846 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,429 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 258,058 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 253 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.