↓ Skip to main content

Supporting patients to self-monitor their oral anticoagulation therapy: recommendations based on a qualitative study of patients' experiences.

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of General Practice, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley
Title
Supporting patients to self-monitor their oral anticoagulation therapy: recommendations based on a qualitative study of patients' experiences.
Published in
British Journal of General Practice, June 2015
DOI 10.3399/bjgp15x685645
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tompson, Alice, Heneghan, Carl, Fitzmaurice, David, Sutton, Stephen, Harrison, Sian, Ward, Alison, Alice Tompson, Carl Heneghan, David Fitzmaurice, Stephen Sutton, Sian Harrison, Alison Ward, A. Tompson, C. Heneghan, D. Fitzmaurice, S. Sutton, S. Harrison, A. Ward

Abstract

Clinical trials suggest that oral anticoagulation therapy (OAT) self-monitoring is safe and effective, however little is known about the patient experience of this process. There is a lack of understanding about how best to train and support patients embarking on OAT self-monitoring. To collect in-depth information about patients' experiences of OAT self-monitoring outside of clinical trial conditions and to produce a set of recommendations on how best to support such patients. Semi-structured qualitative interviews with patients who self-monitor and live in England. In total, 26 of the 267 (9.7%) who participated in the Cohort study of Anticoagulation Self-Monitoring (CASM) and were still self-monitoring after 12 months' follow-up were interviewed. Topics discussed included experiences of OAT self-monitoring, healthcare support, training, and decision making. Framework analysis was used. Following initial problems using the monitoring device, interviewees described a mostly positive experience. Although less effort was expended attending monitoring appointments with health professionals, effort was required to conduct self-monitoring tests and to interpret and act on the results. Desire to self-manage was variable, especially when dosing advice systems worked promptly and reliably. Interviewees overcame patchy healthcare system knowledge and support of self-monitoring by educating themselves. Family and friends provided support with learning to use the monitor and managing OAT dosage adjustments. Better, more-consistent training and health-service support would have alleviated a number of problems encountered by these patients who were self-monitoring. This training and support will become even more important if self-monitoring becomes more accessible to the general population of people on OAT.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 3%
Unknown 29 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 6 20%
Student > Bachelor 6 20%
Student > Master 5 17%
Researcher 4 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 10%
Other 6 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 9 30%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 20%
Psychology 4 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 7%
Other 1 3%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 14 February 2016.
All research outputs
#6,880,133
of 12,973,070 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#1,600
of 2,754 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#123,757
of 336,839 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#50
of 81 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,973,070 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,754 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 336,839 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 62% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 81 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.