↓ Skip to main content

Minorities with lupus nephritis and medications: a study of facilitators to medication decision-making

Overview of attention for article published in Arthritis Research & Therapy, December 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 (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
68 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
Minorities with lupus nephritis and medications: a study of facilitators to medication decision-making
Published in
Arthritis Research & Therapy, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13075-015-0883-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jasvinder A. Singh, Haiyan Qu, Jinoos Yazdany, Winn Chatham, Richard Shewchuk

Abstract

Medication decision-making poses a challenge for a significant proportion of patients. This is an even more challenging for patients who have complex, rare, immune conditions that affect them at a young age and are associated with the use of life-long treatment, perceived by some as having significant risk of side effects and toxicity. The aim of our study was to examine the perspectives of women with lupus nephritis on facilitators to medication decision-making. We used the nominal group technique (NGT), a structured formative process to elicit patient perspectives. An NGT expert moderated eight patient group meetings. Participants (n = 52) responded to the question "What sorts of things make it easier for people to decide to take the medicines that doctors prescribe for treating their lupus kidney disease?" Patients nominated, discussed, and prioritized facilitators to medication decisional processes. Fifty-two women with lupus nephritis participated in eight NGT meetings (27 African-American, 13 Hispanic, and 12 Caucasian). Average age was 40.6 years (standard deviation (SD) = 13.3), and disease duration was 11.8 years (SD = 8.3); 36.5 % obtained at least a college education, and 55.8 % had difficulty in reading health materials. Patients generated 280 decision-making facilitators (range of 26 to 42 per panel). Of these, 102 (36 %) facilitators were perceived by patients as having relatively more influence in decision-making processes than others. Prioritized facilitators included effective patient-physician communication regarding benefits/harms, patient desire to live a normal life and improve quality of life, concern for their dependents, experiencing benefits and few/infrequent/no harms with lupus medications, and their affordability. Relative to African-Americans, Caucasian and Hispanic patients endorsed a smaller percentage of facilitators as influential. Level of agreement with which patients within panels independently agreed in their selections of the three most influential facilitators ranged from 33 % to 60 %. We identified facilitators to lupus medication decision-making. This information will be used to populate a decision aid for lupus nephritis.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 67 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 13%
Researcher 7 10%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 7%
Other 14 21%
Unknown 17 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 26%
Psychology 7 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 7%
Social Sciences 5 7%
Unspecified 4 6%
Other 8 12%
Unknown 21 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 10 May 2016.
All research outputs
#3,710,762
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Arthritis Research & Therapy
#866
of 3,380 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,263
of 380,103 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Arthritis Research & Therapy
#74
of 112 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,380 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 380,103 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 112 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.