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 |
Adherence to oral anticancer chemotherapy: What influences patients’ over or non-adherence? Analysis of the OCTO study through quantitative–qualitative methods
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Research Notes, July 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13104-015-1231-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Aurélie Bourmaud, Emilie Henin, Fabien Tinquaut, Véronique Regnier, Chloé Hamant, Olivier Colomban, Benoit You, Florence Ranchon, Jérôme Guitton, Pascal Girard, Gilles Freyer, Michel Tod, Catherine Rioufol, Véronique Trillet-Lenoir, Franck Chauvin |
| Abstract |
Numerous oral anticancer chemotherapies are available. Non-adherence or over-adherence to these chemotherapies can lead to lowered efficacy and increased risk of adverse events. The objective of this study was to identify patients' adherence profiles using a qualitative-quantitative method. A capecitabine treatment was initiated for 38 patients with advanced breast or colorectal cancer. At inclusion, information on patients' beliefs was reported using a questionnaire. Later, Information on patients' relation to treatment was obtained from a sub-group during an interview with a sociologist. Questionnaires were analyzed using Multiple Classification Analysis to cluster patients. Treatment adherence was evaluated by an electronic medication event monitoring systems (MEMS caps) and then correlated with patient clusters. Interviews were analyzed to complete and explain results. 38 patients were enrolled between 2008 and 2011 and completed the questionnaire. Twenty had adherence measured with MEMS caps all along treatment. Between 4 and 6 months after inclusion, 16 patients were interviewed. Patient profile B (retired, with a regular life, surrounded by a relative's attention to drug adherence, with a low educational level) was statistically associated with adequate adherence (p = 0.049). A tendency for lower adherence was observed among more highly educated patients with an irregular, active life (NS). All patients taking capecitabine demonstrated a risk of over-adherence, potentiating side effects. These encouraging primary results suggest that further studies should be undertaken and that educational programs tailored to patient profiles should be evaluated to enhance adherence for those who need it and to empower all patients to manage treatment side effects. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 4 | 50% |
| Germany | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 3 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 88% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Portugal | 1 | 1% |
| France | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 73 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 5 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 9 | 12% |
| Unknown | 29 | 39% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 20% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 15% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 9 | 12% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 4% |
| Psychology | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 7% |
| Unknown | 30 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 06 November 2023.
All research outputs
#1,943,268
of 24,754,968 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#229
of 4,458 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,093
of 268,129 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#5
of 83 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,754,968 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,458 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 268,129 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 83 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 95% of its contemporaries.