↓ Skip to main content

Implementation of a telephone-based secondary preventive intervention after acute coronary syndrome (ACS): participation rate, reasons for non-participation and 1-year survival

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 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
Implementation of a telephone-based secondary preventive intervention after acute coronary syndrome (ACS): participation rate, reasons for non-participation and 1-year survival
Published in
Trials, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13063-016-1203-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel Huber, Robin Henriksson, Stina Jakobsson, Nikolai Stenfors, Thomas Mooe

Abstract

Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is a major cause of death from a non-communicable disease. Secondary prevention is effective for reducing morbidity and mortality, but evidence-based targets are seldom reached and new interventional methods are needed. The present study is a feasibility study of a telephone-based secondary preventive programme in an unselected ACS cohort. The NAILED (Nurse-based Age-independent Intervention to Limit Evolution of Disease) ACS trial is a prospective randomized controlled trial. All eligible patients admitted for ACS were randomized to usual follow-up by a general practitioner or telephone follow-up by study nurses. The intervention was made by continuous telephone contact, with counseling on healthy living and titration of medicines to reach target values for blood pressure and blood lipids. Exclusion criteria were limited to physical inability to follow the study design or participation in another study. A total of 907 patients were assessed for inclusion. Of these, 661 (72.9 %) were included and randomized, 100 (11 %) declined participation, and 146 (16.1 %) were excluded. The main reasons for exclusion were participation in another trial, dementia, and advanced disease. "Excluded" and "declining" patients were significantly older with more co-morbidity, decreased functional status, and had more seldom received education above compulsory school level than "included" patients. Non-participants had a higher 1-year mortality than participants. Nurse-led telephone-based follow-up after ACS can be applied to a large proportion in an unselected clinical setting. Reasons for non-participation, which were associated with increased mortality, include older age, multiple co-morbidities, decreased functional status and low level of education. International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN): ISRCTN96595458 (archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6RlyhYTYK ). Application date: 10 July 2011.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 131 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Unknown 129 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 14%
Student > Bachelor 17 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 9%
Researcher 11 8%
Other 9 7%
Other 25 19%
Unknown 39 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 15%
Psychology 11 8%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 3%
Other 17 13%
Unknown 44 34%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 16 February 2016.
All research outputs
#6,327,813
of 8,338,485 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#1,814
of 2,281 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#205,732
of 291,167 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#110
of 130 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,338,485 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,281 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 291,167 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 130 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.