↓ Skip to main content

The potential for using a Universal Medication Schedule (UMS) to improve adherence in patients taking multiple medications in the UK: a qualitative evaluation

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
11 X users
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
131 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
The potential for using a Universal Medication Schedule (UMS) to improve adherence in patients taking multiple medications in the UK: a qualitative evaluation
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12913-015-0749-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cassandra Kenning, Joanne Protheroe, Nicola Gray, Darren Ashcroft, Peter Bower

Abstract

Poor adherence to prescribed medication has major consequences. Managing multiple long-term conditions often involves polypharmacy, potentially increasing complexity and the possibility of poor adherence. As a result of the globally recognised problems in supporting adherence to medication, some researchers have proposed the use of reminder charts. The main aim of the research was to explore the need for and perceptions around the 'Universal Medication Schedule' (UMS). Looking at ways in which pharmacists and General Practitioners (GPs) could use the UMS in NHS settings. Semi-structured interviews were carried out with 10 GPs, 10 community pharmacists and 15 patients. Patients were aged 65 years and over, had multiple long-term conditions and were prescribed at least 5 medications. Interviews were recorded and transcribed and thematic analysis was conducted, using a framework approach to manage the data. Attitudes towards the UMS were mixed with stakeholders seeing benefits and limitations to the chart. Practitioners proposed a number of existing services where they thought the UMS could easily be integrated but there was evidence of role conflict with GPs feeling it may be best placed with pharmacists and vice versa. The potential for the UMS to be used as a tool to aid communication between the different services involved in a patient's care was a key theme. The UMS chart provides consolidated medicines information that might help to improve patients' knowledge and health literacy, which may or may not improve adherence but could help patients in making informed decisions about their treatment. One of the key benefits of using the UMS in practice is that it could be introduced across services. In this way it may aid in medicines reconciliation between healthcare settings to ensure continuity of message, improve patient experience and create more joined up working between services. Further research is needed to test implementation in different services and to assess outcomes on patient understanding and adherence.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 131 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 2%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Unknown 127 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 16%
Researcher 19 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 11%
Student > Bachelor 8 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 5%
Other 32 24%
Unknown 29 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 25%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 21 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 11%
Social Sciences 7 5%
Psychology 5 4%
Other 18 14%
Unknown 33 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 30 October 2023.
All research outputs
#2,300,248
of 25,805,386 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#879
of 8,775 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,183
of 275,449 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#9
of 95 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,805,386 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,775 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 275,449 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 95 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.