↓ Skip to main content

Toward appropriate criteria in medication adherence assessment in older persons: Position Paper

Overview of attention for article published in Aging Clinical and Experimental Research, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
56 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
124 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
Toward appropriate criteria in medication adherence assessment in older persons: Position Paper
Published in
Aging Clinical and Experimental Research, September 2015
DOI 10.1007/s40520-015-0435-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anna Giardini, Maria Teresa Martin, Caitriona Cahir, Elaine Lehane, Enrica Menditto, Maria Strano, Sergio Pecorelli, Alessandro Monaco, Alessandra Marengoni

Abstract

Nonadherence to medication regimens is a worldwide challenge; adherence rates range from 38 to 57 % in older populations with an average rate of less than 45 % and nonadherence contributes to adverse drug events, increased emergency visits and hospitalisations. Accurate measurement of medication adherence is important in terms of both research and clinical practice. However, the identification of an objective approach to measure nonadherence is still an ongoing challenge. The aim of this Position Paper is to describe the advantages and disadvantages of the known medication adherence tools (self-report, pill count, medication event monitoring system (MEMS) and electronic monitoring devices, therapeutic drug monitoring, pharmacy records based on pharmacy refill and pharmacy claims databases) to provide the appropriate criteria to assess medication adherence in older persons. To the best of our knowledge, no gold standard has been identified in adherence measurement and no single method is sufficiently reliable and accurate. A combination of methods appears to be the most suitable. Secondly, adherence assessment should always consider tools enabling polypharmacy adherence assessment. Moreover, it is increasingly evident that adherence, as a process, has to be assessed over time and not just at one evaluation time point (drug discontinuation). When cognitive deficits or functional impairments may impair reliability of adherence assessment, a comprehensive geriatric assessment should be performed and the caregiver involved. Finally, studies considering the possible implementation in clinical practice of adherence assessment tools validated in research are needed.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 124 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
Spain 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Unknown 120 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 17%
Researcher 19 15%
Student > Bachelor 12 10%
Lecturer 6 5%
Other 21 17%
Unknown 23 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 32 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 21 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 5%
Social Sciences 6 5%
Other 19 15%
Unknown 27 22%
Attention Score in Context

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 27 May 2016.
All research outputs
#7,688,890
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Aging Clinical and Experimental Research
#637
of 1,867 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,986
of 276,789 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Aging Clinical and Experimental Research
#7
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,867 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 276,789 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 25 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 72% of its contemporaries.