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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Language-concordant automated telephone queries to assess medication adherence in a diverse population: a cross-sectional analysis of convergent validity with pharmacy claims
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Health Services Research, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12913-018-3071-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Neda Ratanawongsa, Judy Quan, Margaret A. Handley, Urmimala Sarkar, Dean Schillinger |
| Abstract |
Clinicians have difficulty accurately assessing medication non-adherence within chronic disease care settings. Health information technology (HIT) could offer novel tools to assess medication adherence in diverse populations outside of usual health care settings. In a multilingual urban safety net population, we examined the validity of assessing adherence using automated telephone self-management (ATSM) queries, when compared with non-adherence using continuous medication gap (CMG) on pharmacy claims. We hypothesized that patients reporting greater days of missed pills to ATSM queries would have higher rates of non-adherence as measured by CMG, and that ATSM adherence assessments would perform as well as structured interview assessments. As part of an ATSM-facilitated diabetes self-management program, low-income health plan members typed numeric responses to rotating weekly ATSM queries: "In the last 7 days, how many days did you MISS taking your …" diabetes, blood pressure, or cholesterol pill. Research assistants asked similar questions in computer-assisted structured telephone interviews. We measured continuous medication gap (CMG) by claims over 12 preceding months. To evaluate convergent validity, we compared rates of optimal adherence (CMG ≤ 20%) across respondents reporting 0, 1, and ≥ 2 missed pill days on ATSM and on structured interview. Among 210 participants, 46% had limited health literacy, 57% spoke Cantonese, and 19% Spanish. ATSM respondents reported ≥1 missed day for diabetes (33%), blood pressure (19%), and cholesterol (36%) pills. Interview respondents reported ≥1 missed day for diabetes (28%), blood pressure (21%), and cholesterol (26%) pills. Optimal adherence rates by CMG were lower among ATSM respondents reporting more missed days for blood pressure (p = 0.02) and cholesterol (p < 0.01); by interview, differences were significant for cholesterol (p = 0.01). Language-concordant ATSM demonstrated modest potential for assessing adherence. Studies should evaluate HIT assessments of medication beliefs and concerns in diverse populations. NCT00683020 , registered May 21, 2008. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 50% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 2 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 50% |
| Scientists | 3 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 110 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 110 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 15 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 22 | 20% |
| Unknown | 39 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 19 | 17% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 16% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 7% |
| Psychology | 5 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 15 | 14% |
| Unknown | 41 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 10 July 2018.
All research outputs
#6,794,345
of 23,041,514 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#3,282
of 7,715 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#117,903
of 329,530 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#112
of 210 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,041,514 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,715 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 329,530 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 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 210 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.