↓ Skip to main content

Matching Adherence Interventions to Patient Determinants Using the Theoretical Domains Framework

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Pharmacology, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
88 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
Matching Adherence Interventions to Patient Determinants Using the Theoretical Domains Framework
Published in
Frontiers in Pharmacology, November 2016
DOI 10.3389/fphar.2016.00429
Pubmed ID
Authors

Samuel S. Allemann, Robby Nieuwlaat, Bart J. F. van den Bemt, Kurt E. Hersberger, Isabelle Arnet

Abstract

Introduction: Despite much research, interventions to improve medication adherence report disappointing and inconsistent results. Tailored approaches that match interventions and patient determinants of non-adherence were seldom used in clinical trials. The presence of a multitude of theoretical frameworks and models to categorize interventions and patient determinants complicated the development of common categories shared by interventions and determinants. We retrieved potential interventions and patient determinants from published literature on medication adherence, matched them like locks and keys, and categorized them according to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Methods: We identified the most relevant literature reviews on interventions and determinants in a pragmatic literature search, extracted all interventions and determinants, grouped similar concepts to umbrella terms and assigned them to TDF categories. All steps were finalized in consensus discussion between the authors. Results: Sixteen articles (5 with determinants, 11 with interventions) were included for analysis. We extracted 103 interventions and 42 determinants that we divided in 26 modifiable and 16 unmodifiable determinants. All interventions and modifiable determinants were matched within 11 categories (Knowledge; Skills; Social/professional role and identity; Beliefs about capabilities; Beliefs about consequences; Intentions; Memory, Attention and decision processes; Environmental context and resources; Social influences; Emotion; and Behavioral regulation). Conclusion: In published trials on medication adherence, the congruence between interventions and determinants can be assessed with matching interventions to determinants. To be successful, interventions in medication adherence should target current modifiable determinants and be tailored to the unmodifiable determinants. Modifiable and unmodifiable determinants need to be assessed at inclusion of intervention studies to identify the patients most in need of an adherence intervention. Our matched categories may be useful to develop interventions in trials that investigate the effectiveness of adherence interventions.

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 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 88 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 15%
Student > Master 11 13%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Other 12 14%
Unknown 23 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 28%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 12 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 13%
Psychology 7 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 3%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 24 27%
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 24 November 2016.
All research outputs
#20,649,117
of 25,362,278 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#9,975
of 19,697 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#241,522
of 313,239 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#86
of 157 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,362,278 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 19,697 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 313,239 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 157 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.