↓ Skip to main content

Generalizability of guidelines and physicians' adherence. Case study on the Sixth Joint National Commitee's guidelines on hypertension

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, July 2003
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 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
Generalizability of guidelines and physicians' adherence. Case study on the Sixth Joint National Commitee's guidelines on hypertension
Published in
BMC Public Health, July 2003
DOI 10.1186/1471-2458-3-24
Pubmed ID
Authors

Claudio Pedone, Kate L Lapane

Abstract

Clinical practice guidelines (CPG) are thought to be an effective tool in improving efficiency and outcomes of clinical practice. Physicians' adherence to guidelines is reported to be poor. We evaluated the relationship between generalizability of guidelines on hypertension and physicians' adherence to guidelines' recommendations for pharmacological treatment. We used the Sixth Joint National Committee's (JNC VI) guidelines on hypertension to evaluate our hypothesis. We evaluated the evidence from controlled clinical trials on which the JNC VI bases its recommendation, and compared the population enrolled in those trials with the American hypertensive population. Data on this population came from the National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey III. Twenty-three percent of the NHANES population had a diagnosis of hypertension, 11% had hypertension requiring drug treatment according to the JNC VI. Only half of the population requiring treatment would have been enrolled in at least two trials. Rate of adherence to CPG was 69%. We found a weak association between generalizability and physicians' adherence to guidelines. Baseline risk was the major determinant of the decision to treat. JNC VI guidelines may not be generalizable to their target population. We found a relatively poor adherence rate to these guidelines. Failing of completely taking into account the clinical characteristics of the patients may be partly responsible for this lack of adherence.

Mendeley readers

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 %
United Kingdom 1 3%
Unknown 39 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 10%
Other 4 10%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Other 8 20%
Unknown 8 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 15%
Social Sciences 3 8%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 13 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 01 January 2010.
All research outputs
#7,528,880
of 22,974,684 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#7,949
of 14,966 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,784
of 49,166 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#2
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,974,684 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,966 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 49,166 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 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.