↓ Skip to main content

Reasons for non-adherence to cardiometabolic medications, and acceptability of an interactive voice response intervention in patients with hypertension and type 2 diabetes in primary care: a…

Overview of attention for article published in BMJ Open, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 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
Reasons for non-adherence to cardiometabolic medications, and acceptability of an interactive voice response intervention in patients with hypertension and type 2 diabetes in primary care: a qualitative study
Published in
BMJ Open, August 2017
DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015597
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aikaterini Kassavou, Stephen Sutton

Abstract

This study explored the reasons for patients' non-adherence to cardiometabolic medications, and tested the acceptability of the interactive voice response (IVR) as a way to address these reasons, and support patients, between primary care consultations. The study included face-to-face interviews with 19 patients with hypertension and/or type 2 diabetes mellitus, selected from primary care databases, and presumed to be non-adherent. Thirteen of these patients pretested elements of the IVR intervention few months later, using a think-aloud protocol. Five practice nurses were interviewed. Data were analysed using multiperspective, and longitudinalthematic analysis. Negative beliefs about taking medications, the complexity of prescribed medication regimens, and the limited ability to cope with the underlying affective state, within challenging contexts, were mentioned as important reasons for non-adherence. Nurses reported time constraints to address each patient's different reasons for non-adherence, and limited efficacy to support patients, between primary care consultations. Patients gave positive experiential feedback about the IVR messages as a way to support them take their medicines, and provided recommendations for intervention content and delivery mode. Specifically, they liked the voice delivering the messages and the voice recognition software. For intervention content, they preferred messages that were tailored, and included messages with 'information about health consequences', 'action plans', or simple reminders for performing the behaviour. Patients with hypertension and/or type 2 diabetes, and practice nurses, suggested messages tailored to each patient's reasons for non-adherence. Participants recommended IVR as an acceptable platform to support adherence to cardiometabolic medications between primary care consultations. Future studies could usefully test the acceptability, and feasibility, of tailored IVR interventions to support medication adherence, as an adjunct to primary care.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 41 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 8 20%
Student > Postgraduate 7 17%
Student > Bachelor 7 17%
Researcher 6 15%
Student > Master 5 12%
Other 8 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 11 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 20%
Psychology 5 12%
Computer Science 2 5%
Other 5 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 12 August 2017.
All research outputs
#6,829,133
of 12,342,998 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#6,234
of 9,589 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#119,920
of 270,098 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#383
of 614 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,342,998 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,589 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 270,098 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 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 614 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.