↓ Skip to main content

Adherence to oral anticancer chemotherapy: What influences patients’ over or non-adherence? Analysis of the OCTO study through quantitative–qualitative methods

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, July 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 (82nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 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
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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 70 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 68 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 19%
Student > Master 9 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Other 5 7%
Student > Postgraduate 5 7%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 24 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 16%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Psychology 2 3%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 25 36%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 24 July 2019.
All research outputs
#3,564,506
of 22,816,807 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#499
of 4,262 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,649
of 262,815 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#8
of 80 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,816,807 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,262 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 262,815 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 80 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.