↓ Skip to main content

Results of a pilot cluster randomised trial of the use of a Medication Review Tool for people taking antipsychotic medication

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Psychiatry, July 2016
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)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
18 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
139 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
Results of a pilot cluster randomised trial of the use of a Medication Review Tool for people taking antipsychotic medication
Published in
BMC Psychiatry, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12888-016-0921-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joanna Moncrieff, Kiran Azam, Sonia Johnson, Louise Marston, Nicola Morant, Katherine Darton, Neil Wood

Abstract

Government policy encourages increasing involvement of patients in their long-term care. This paper describes the development and pilot evaluation of a 'Medication Review Tool' designed to assist people to participate more effectively in discussions about antipsychotic drug treatment. The Medication Review Tool developed consisted of a form to help patients identify pros and cons of their current antipsychotic treatment and any desired changes. It was associated with a website containing information and links about antipsychotics. For the trial, participants diagnosed with psychotic disorders were recruited from community mental health services. Cluster randomisation was used to allocate health professionals (care co-ordinators) and their associated patients to use of the Medication Review Tool or usual care. All participants had a medical consultation scheduled, and those in the intervention group completed the Medication Review Tool, with the help of their health professional prior to this, and took the completed Form into the consultation. Two follow-up interviews were conducted up to three months after the consultation. The principal outcome was the Decision Self Efficacy Scale (DSES). Qualitative feedback was collected from patients in the intervention group. One hundred and thirty patients were screened, sixty patients were randomised, 51 completed the first follow-up assessment and 49 completed the second. Many patients were not randomised due to the timing of their consultation, and involvement of health professionals was inconsistent. There was no difference between the groups on the DSES (-4.16 95 % CI -9.81, 1.49), symptoms, side effects, antipsychotic doses or patient satisfaction. Scores on the Medication Adherence Questionnaire indicated an increase in participants' reported inclination to adherence in the intervention group (coefficient adjusted for baseline values -0.44; 95 % CI -0.76, -0.11), and there was a small increase in positive attitudes to antipsychotic medication (Drug Attitude Inventory, adjusted coefficient 1.65; 95 % CI -0.09, 3.40). Qualitative feedback indicated patients valued the Tool for identifying both positive and negative aspects of drug treatment. The trial demonstrated the design was feasible, although challenges included service re-configurations and maintaining health professional involvement. Results may indicate a more intensive and sustained intervention is required to facilitate participation in decision-making for this group of patients. Current controlled trials ISRCTN12055530 , Retrospectively registered 9/12/2013.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 X users 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 139 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 139 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 19%
Researcher 17 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 9%
Other 9 6%
Other 30 22%
Unknown 31 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 35 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 22 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 6%
Social Sciences 6 4%
Other 12 9%
Unknown 42 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 August 2016.
All research outputs
#3,081,634
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychiatry
#1,178
of 4,939 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,457
of 358,274 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychiatry
#33
of 120 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,939 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 358,274 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 120 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.