↓ Skip to main content

How do stroke survivors and their carers use practitioners’ advice on secondary prevention medications? Qualitative study of an online forum

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#11 of 1,399)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
8 news outlets
twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 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 do stroke survivors and their carers use practitioners’ advice on secondary prevention medications? Qualitative study of an online forum
Published in
Family Practice, April 2017
DOI 10.1093/fampra/cmx023
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nkeonye J Izuka, Matthew A W Alexander, Chantal Balasooriya-Smeekens, Jonathan Mant, Anna De Simoni

Abstract

Secondary prevention medications reduce risk of stroke recurrence, yet many people do not receive recommended treatment, nor take medications optimally. . Exploring how patients report making use of practitioners' advice on secondary prevention medicines on an online forum and what feedback was received from other participants. Thematic analysis of the archive of Talkstroke (2004-2011), UK. Posts including any secondary prevention medication terms, General Practitioner (GP) and their replies were identified. Fifity participants talked about practitioners' advice on secondary prevention medications in 43 discussion threads. Patients consulted practitioners for reassurance and dealing with side effects. Practitioners' advice varied from altering to maintaining current treatment. Three main themes emerged from the use of practitioners' advice: patients following advice (reassured, happy when side effects made tolerable, or still retaining anxiety about treatment); patients not following advice (admitting adherence on-off or stopping medications as side effects still not tolerable); asking other participants for feedback on advice received. Practitioners' advice was disregarded mainly when related to dealing with statin side effects, after one or two consultations. Themes for feedback involved sharing experience, directing back to practitioners, or to external evidence. . Side effects of secondary prevention medications and statins in particular, cause anxiety and resentment in some patients, and their concerns are not always addressed by practitioners. Practitioners could consider more proactive strategies to manage such side effects. Forum feedback was appropriate and supportive of the practitioners' advice received. Our findings from peer-to-peer online conversations confirm and widen previous research.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 4%
Unknown 26 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 8 30%
Student > Master 6 22%
Student > Bachelor 4 15%
Researcher 3 11%
Professor 2 7%
Other 4 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 12 44%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 19%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 7%
Psychology 1 4%
Other 1 4%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 67. 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 15 February 2019.
All research outputs
#252,561
of 13,428,727 outputs
Outputs from Family Practice
#11
of 1,399 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,657
of 263,807 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Family Practice
#2
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,428,727 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,399 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 263,807 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.