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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Impact of a tailored program on the implementation of evidence-based recommendations for multimorbid patients with polypharmacy in primary care practices—results of a cluster-randomized controlled trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Implementation Science, January 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13012-016-0535-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Cornelia Jäger, Tobias Freund, Jost Steinhäuser, Christian Stock, Johannes Krisam, Petra Kaufmann-Kolle, Michel Wensing, Joachim Szecsenyi |
| Abstract |
Multimorbid patients receiving polypharmacy represent a growing population at high risk for negative health outcomes. Tailoring is an approach of systematic intervention development taking account of previously identified determinants of practice. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of a tailored program to improve the implementation of three important processes of care for this patient group: (a) structured medication counseling including brown bag reviews, (b) the use of medication lists, and (c) structured medication reviews to reduce potentially inappropriate medication. We conducted a cluster-randomized controlled trial with a follow-up time of 9 months. Participants were general practitioners (GPs) organized in quality circles and participating in a GP-centered care contract of a German health insurance. Patients aged >50 years, suffering from at least 3 chronic diseases, receiving more than 4 drugs, and being at high risk for medication-related events according to the assessment of the treating GP were enrolled. The tailored program consisted of a workshop for GPs and health care assistants, educational materials and reminders for patients, and the elaboration of implementation action plans. The primary outcome was the change in the degree of implementation between baseline and follow-up, measured by a summary score of 10 indicators. The indicators were based on structured surveys with patients and GPs. We analyzed the data of 21 GPs (10 - intervention group, 11 - control group) and 273 patients (130 - intervention group, 143 - control group). The increase in the degree of implementation was 4.2 percentage points (95% confidence interval: -0.3, 8.6) higher in the intervention group compared to the control group (p = 0.1). Two of the 10 indicators were significantly improved in the intervention group: medication counseling (p = 0.017) and brown bag review (p = 0.012). Secondary outcomes showed an effect on patients' self-reported use of medication lists when buying drugs in the pharmacy (p = 0.03). The tailored program may improve implementation of medication counseling and brown bag review whereas the use of medication lists and medication reviews did not improve. No effect of the tailored program on the combined primary outcome could be substantiated. Due to limitations of the study, results have to be interpreted carefully. The factors facilitating and hindering successful implementation will be examined in a comprehensive process evaluation. ISRCTN34664024 , assigned 14/08/2013. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 13% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 13% |
| Colombia | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 5 | 63% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 3 | 38% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 25% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 25% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 182 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 180 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 29 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 23 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 20 | 11% |
| Researcher | 11 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 4% |
| Other | 33 | 18% |
| Unknown | 58 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 44 | 24% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 19 | 10% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 17 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 4% |
| Psychology | 7 | 4% |
| Other | 17 | 9% |
| Unknown | 70 | 38% |
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 27 February 2017.
All research outputs
#6,462,652
of 22,940,083 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,118
of 1,722 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#122,368
of 421,590 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#26
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,940,083 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,722 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 421,590 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.