↓ Skip to main content

Taxonomy of the burden of treatment: a multi-country web-based qualitative study of patients with chronic conditions

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
398 tweeters
facebook
5 Facebook pages
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
129 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
220 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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
Taxonomy of the burden of treatment: a multi-country web-based qualitative study of patients with chronic conditions
Published in
BMC Medicine, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12916-015-0356-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Viet-Thi Tran, Caroline Barnes, Victor M. Montori, Bruno Falissard, Philippe Ravaud

Abstract

Management strategies for patients with chronic conditions are becoming increasingly complex, which may result in a burden of treatment for patients. To develop a Minimally Disruptive Medicine designed to reduce the burden of treatment, clinicians need to understand which healthcare tasks and aggravating factors may be responsible for this burden. The objective of the present study is to describe and classify the components of the burden of treatment for patients with chronic conditions from the patient's perspective. We performed a multi-country qualitative study using an online survey and a purposive sampling strategy to select English-, French-, and Spanish-speaking participants with different chronic conditions. Participants were recruited by physicians, patients' associations, advertisement on social media, and 'snowballing'. The answers were analyzed by i) manual content analysis with a grounded theory approach, coded by two researchers, and ii) automatic textual analysis by Reinert's method. Between 2013 and 2014, 1,053 participants from 34 different countries completed the online survey using 408,625 words. Results from both analyses were synthesized in a taxonomy of the burden of treatment, which described i) the tasks imposed on patients by their diseases and by their healthcare system (e.g., medication management, lifestyle changes, follow-up, etc.); ii) the structural (e.g., access to healthcare resources, coordination between care providers), personal, situational, and financial factors that aggravated the burden of treatment; and iii) patient-reported consequences of the burden (e.g., poor adherence to treatments, financial burden, impact on professional, family, and social life, etc.). Our findings may not be applicable to patients with chronic conditions who differ from those who responded to our survey. Our taxonomy of the burden of treatment, provided by patients with chronic conditions from different countries and settings, supports the development of tools to ascertain the burden of treatment and highlights potential targets for interventions to minimize it.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 398 tweeters 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 220 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Unknown 216 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 37 17%
Researcher 29 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 10%
Student > Bachelor 19 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 6%
Other 51 23%
Unknown 49 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 58 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 32 15%
Social Sciences 19 9%
Psychology 13 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 3%
Other 29 13%
Unknown 62 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 267. 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 13 June 2022.
All research outputs
#101,123
of 21,763,118 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#91
of 3,186 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,167
of 246,361 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,763,118 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,186 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 41.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 246,361 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them