↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Strategies for improving adherence to antiepileptic drug treatment in people with epilepsy

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2017
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 (88th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

1 blog
10 tweeters


26 Dimensions

Readers on

180 Mendeley
Strategies for improving adherence to antiepileptic drug treatment in people with epilepsy
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008312.pub3
Pubmed ID

Sinaa Al-aqeel, Olga Gershuni, Jawza Al-sabhan, Mickael Hiligsmann


Poor adherence to antiepileptic medication is associated with increased mortality, morbidity and healthcare costs. In this review, we focus on interventions designed and tested in randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised controlled trials to assist people with adherence to antiepileptic medication. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in the Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2010. To determine the effectiveness of interventions aimed at improving adherence to antiepileptic medication in adults and children with epilepsy. For the latest update, on 4 February 2016 we searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO), MEDLINE (Ovid 1946 to 4 February 2016), CINAHL Plus (EBSCOhost 1937 to 4 February 2016), PsycINFO (EBSCOhost 1887 to 4 February 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles. Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of adherence-enhancing interventions aimed at people with a clinical diagnosis of epilepsy (as defined in individual studies), of any age and treated with antiepileptic drugs in a primary care, outpatient or other community setting. All review authors independently assessed lists of potentially relevant citations and abstracts. At least two review authors independently extracted data and performed quality assessment of each study according to the Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias. We graded the level of evidence for each outcome according to the GRADE working group scale.The studies differed widely according to the type of intervention and measures of adherence; therefore combining data was not appropriate. We included 12 studies reporting data on 1642 participants (intervention = 833, control = 809). Eight studies targeted adults with epilepsy, one study included participants of all ages, one study included participants older than two years, one study targeted caregivers of children with epilepsy, and one study targeted families of children with epilepsy. We identified six ongoing trials. Follow-up time was generally short in most trials, ranging from one to 12 months. The trials examined three main types of interventions: educational interventions, behavioural interventions and mixed interventions. All studies compared treatment versus usual care or 'no intervention', except for two studies. Due to heterogeneity between studies in terms of interventions, methods used to measure adherence and the way the studies were reported, we did not pool the results and these findings were inappropriate to be included in a meta-analysis. Education and counselling of participants with epilepsy resulted in mixed success (moderate-quality evidence). Behavioural interventions such as use of intensive reminders provided more favourable effects on adherence (moderate-quality evidence). The effect on adherence to antiepileptic drugs described by studies of mixed interventions showed improved adherence in the intervention groups compared to the control groups (high-quality evidence). Behavioural interventions such as intensive reminders and the use of mixed interventions demonstrate some positive results; however, we need more reliable evidence on their efficacy, derived from carefully-designed randomised controlled trials before we can draw a firm conclusion. Since the last version of this review, none of the new relevant studies have provided additional information that would lead to significant changes in our conclusions. This current update includes 12 studies, of which six came from the latest searches.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 180 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 180 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 34 19%
Student > Bachelor 23 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 9%
Student > Postgraduate 13 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 6%
Other 35 19%
Unknown 47 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 56 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 28 16%
Psychology 14 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 4%
Social Sciences 6 3%
Other 15 8%
Unknown 53 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 18 February 2019.
All research outputs
of 14,346,625 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 10,948 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 349,529 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 209 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,346,625 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,948 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 349,529 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 209 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 60% of its contemporaries.