↓ Skip to main content

Does the use of an electronic reminder device with or without counseling improve adherence to lipid-lowering treatment? The results of a randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Pharmacology, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 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
Does the use of an electronic reminder device with or without counseling improve adherence to lipid-lowering treatment? The results of a randomized controlled trial
Published in
Frontiers in Pharmacology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fphar.2013.00069
Pubmed ID
Authors

M. J. Kooy, B. L. G. van Wijk, E. R. Heerdink, A. de Boer, M. L. Bouvy

Abstract

Background: Lipid-lowering treatment with statins has proven to be effective in reducing cardiovascular events and mortality. In daily practice, however, adherence to medication is often low and this compromises the therapeutic effect. The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of an electronic reminder device (ERD) with or without counseling to improve refill adherence and persistence for statin treatment in non-adherent patients. Methods: A multicenter, community pharmacy-based, randomized controlled trial was conducted in 24 pharmacies in the Netherlands among patients with pre-baseline refill adherence rates between 50 and 80%. Eligible patients aged 65 years or older were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups: (1) counseling with an ERD (n = 134), (2) ERD with a written instruction (n = 131), and a (3) control group that received the usual treatment (n = 134). Main outcome measure: refill adherence to statin treatment for a 360-day period after inclusion (PDC360). Patients with a refill rate ≥80% were considered adherent. The effect among subgroups was also assessed. Results: There were no relevant differences at baseline. In the counseling with ERD group 54 of 130 eligible patients received the counseling with ERD. In the ERD group, 117 of 123 eligible patients received the ERD. The proportions of adherent patients in the counseling with ERD-group (69.2%) and in the ERD group (72.4%) were not higher than in the control group (64.8%). Among women using statins for secondary prevention, more patients were adherent in the ERD group (86.1%) than in the control group (52.6%) (p < 0.005). In men using statins for secondary prevention the ERD was found to have no effect. Conclusion: In this randomized controlled trial, no statistically significant improvement of refill adherence was found if an ERD was used with or without counseling. However, in a subgroup of women using statins for secondary prevention the ERD did improve adherence significantly.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Mexico 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 48 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 25%
Student > Master 11 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 16%
Student > Bachelor 2 4%
Other 2 4%
Other 7 14%
Unknown 8 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 39%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 12%
Computer Science 4 8%
Psychology 4 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 11 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 15 July 2013.
All research outputs
#6,453,660
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#2,673
of 17,181 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,890
of 284,930 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#32
of 167 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 17,181 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 284,930 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 167 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.