↓ Skip to main content

Medication effectiveness may not be the major reason for accepting cardiovascular preventive medication: A population-based survey

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, August 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 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
Medication effectiveness may not be the major reason for accepting cardiovascular preventive medication: A population-based survey
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, August 2012
DOI 10.1186/1472-6947-12-89
Pubmed ID
Authors

Charlotte Gry Harmsen, Henrik Støvring, Dorte Ejg Jarbøl, Jørgen Nexøe, Dorte Gyrd-Hansen, Jesper Bo Nielsen, Adrian Edwards, Ivar Sønbø Kristiansen

Abstract

Shared decision-making and patients' choice of interventions are areas of increasing importance, not least seen in the light of the fact that chronic conditions are increasing, interventions considered important for public health, and still non-acceptance of especially risk-reducing treatments of cardiovascular diseases (CVD) is prevalent. A better understanding of patients' medication-taking behavior is needed and may be reached by studying the reasons why people accept or decline medication recommendations. The aim of this paper was to identify factors that may influence people's decisions and reasoning for accepting or declining a cardiovascular preventive medication offer.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 23%
Researcher 9 23%
Student > Master 5 13%
Other 3 8%
Professor 3 8%
Other 8 20%
Unknown 3 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 33%
Social Sciences 5 13%
Psychology 5 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 10%
Computer Science 2 5%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 6 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 December 2012.
All research outputs
#2,802,742
of 12,409,138 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#279
of 1,122 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,694
of 123,150 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#3
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,409,138 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 77th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,122 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 123,150 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.