↓ Skip to main content

Determinants of adherence to heart failure medication: a systematic literature review

Overview of attention for article published in Heart Failure Reviews, June 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
98 Mendeley
Title
Determinants of adherence to heart failure medication: a systematic literature review
Published in
Heart Failure Reviews, June 2012
DOI 10.1007/s10741-012-9321-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

R. Oosterom-Calo, A. J. van Ballegooijen, C. B. Terwee, S. J. te Velde, I. A. Brouwer, T. Jaarsma, J. Brug

Abstract

A systematic literature review was conducted to summarize the existing evidence on presumed determinants of heart failure (HF) medication adherence. The aim was to assess the evidence and provide directions for future medication adherence interventions for HF patients. Based on a search in relevant databases and a quality assessment, eleven articles were included in the review. A best evidence synthesis was used to combine the results of presumed determinants that were found more than once in the literature. Results were classified according the World Health Organization's (WHO) multidimensional adherence model. Results demonstrated a relationship between having been institutionalized in the past (including hospitalizations and nursing home visits) and higher adherence levels. This finding is related to the healthcare system dimension of the WHO model. The presumed determinants related to the other dimensions, such as social and economic factors, condition-related, therapy-related, and patient-related factors of the multidimensional adherence model all had inconsistent evidence. However, there was also an indication that patients' educational level and the number of healthcare professionals they have visited are not related to higher adherence levels. Based on the current review, HF patients who have been institutionalized in the past are more adherent to HF medication. Many other presumed determinants were investigated, but displayed inconsistent evidence. Due to the lack of evidence, it was not possible to make recommendations for future interventions.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
France 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 94 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 28 29%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 18%
Unspecified 12 12%
Researcher 12 12%
Student > Bachelor 7 7%
Other 21 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 35%
Unspecified 17 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 12%
Psychology 9 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 7%
Other 19 19%

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 28 April 2014.
All research outputs
#6,810,668
of 8,938,609 outputs
Outputs from Heart Failure Reviews
#112
of 179 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#119,878
of 181,464 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Heart Failure Reviews
#2
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,938,609 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 179 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.3. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 181,464 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.