↓ Skip to main content

Improving patient–physician dialog: commentary on the results of the MS Choices survey

Overview of attention for article published in Patient preference and adherence, February 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 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
Improving patient–physician dialog: commentary on the results of the MS Choices survey
Published in
Patient preference and adherence, February 2012
DOI 10.2147/ppa.s27932
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alessandra Lugaresi, Tjalf Ziemssen, Celia Oreja-Guevara, Delyth Thomas, Elisabetta Verdun

Abstract

Achieving good long- and short-term adherence to treatment for chronic diseases is important if patients are to gain the full benefits of treatment. Several barriers to adherence in multiple sclerosis (MS) have been identified and the healthcare team should work with patients to help them to overcome these obstacles. The MS Choices survey explored patient and physician perspectives on key aspects of MS diagnosis, treatment adherence, and disease management with the aim of improving understanding of the factors that influence patient behavior regarding treatment adherence. The survey found some important differences between patient and physician responses and here these findings are discussed in the context of personal clinical experience. Further, the possible implications of these findings for routine practice have been considered, and strategies that should be employed by MS physicians and nurses to help patients to adhere to their prescribed treatment are suggested.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 10%
Japan 1 3%
Unknown 25 86%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 5 17%
Researcher 5 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 10%
Professor 2 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 7%
Other 5 17%
Unknown 7 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 48%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 14%
Decision Sciences 1 3%
Psychology 1 3%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 7 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 17 February 2012.
All research outputs
#20,823,121
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#1,400
of 1,733 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#206,034
of 254,308 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#9
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,733 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% 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 254,308 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.