↓ Skip to main content

What are the implications for practice that arise from studies of medication taking? A systematic review of qualitative research

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS ONE, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 tweeters

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
What are the implications for practice that arise from studies of medication taking? A systematic review of qualitative research
Published in
PLoS ONE, May 2018
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0195076
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mohammed Ahmed Rashid, Nadia Llanwarne, Natalie Heyns, Fiona Walter, Jonathan Mant

Abstract

Despite several decades of evidence supporting the benefits of taking medications in various diseases and healthcare settings, a significant proportion of prescribed treatments are not taken. This review sought to synthesise qualitative research exploring experiences of medication taking around the world, and to determine whether there were consistent messages arising from these studies. 5 databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, SCOPUS, CINAHL) were systematically searched to identify published research papers using qualitative methodologies, which explored medication-taking experiences in patients, citizens, carers, relatives and clinicians. Data were extracted independently by at least two clinician reviewers. Implications for practice from individual papers were charted and coded using thematic content analysis. These were then cross-tabulated with research paper categories to explore emergent patterns with particular implications for practice. 192 papers from 34 different countries were included in the review. Implications for practice fitted into 11 categories: increase family involvement, increase clinician involvement, promote personalised management, address practical barriers, provide ongoing support, promote self-management, adopt a patient-centred approach, improve patient education, address system barriers, increase access to non-prescribing clinicians and improve clinician training. These implications for practice were generally evenly spread across research paper categories. Implications for practice from the published qualitative literature exploring medication-taking are notably consistent across research methods, disease categories and geographical settings. More recent clinical trials of interventions to improve adherence have started to draw on these findings by focussing on improving clinical interactions and involving patients in healthcare decisions. Promoting patient education and self-management have been widely advocated, and improvements at a system level have been frequently cited in studies from developing countries and those relating to communicable diseases. Regardless of the setting, clinicians and policymakers around the world can focus efforts to improve medication-taking by considering a number of consistently emerging findings.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 20%
Student > Master 6 15%
Researcher 5 12%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 3 7%
Unspecified 3 7%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 10 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 17%
Social Sciences 5 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 10%
Unspecified 3 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 7%
Other 7 17%
Unknown 12 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 31 July 2018.
All research outputs
#3,809,911
of 15,045,928 outputs
Outputs from PLoS ONE
#44,550
of 153,049 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#85,401
of 276,988 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS ONE
#926
of 2,461 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,045,928 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 153,049 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 276,988 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2,461 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.