Mapping the Knowledge Structure of Research on Patient Adherence: Knowledge Domain Visualization Based Co-Word Analysis and Social Network Analysis

Abstract

BackgroundPatient adherence is an important issue for health service providers and health researchers. However, the knowledge structure of diverse research on treatment adherence is unclear. This study used co-word analysis and social network analysis techniques to analyze research literature on adherence, and to show their knowledge structure and evolution over time.MethodsPublished scientific papers about treatment adherence were retrieved from Web of Science (2000 to May 2011). A total of 2308 relevant articles were included: 788 articles published in 2000–2005 and 1520 articles published in 2006–2011. The keywords of each article were extracted by using the software Biblexcel, and the synonym and isogenous words were merged manually. The frequency of keywords and their co-occurrence frequency were counted. High frequency keywords were selected to yield the co-words matrix. Finally the decomposition maps were used to comb the complex knowledge structures.ResultsResearch themes were more general in the first period (2000 to 2005), and more extensive with many more new terms in the second period (2006 to 2011). Research on adherence has covered more and more diseases, populations and methods, but other diseases/conditions are not as hot as HIV/AIDS and have not become specialty themes/sub-directions. Most studies originated from the United States.ConclusionThe dynamic of this field is mainly divergent, with increasing number of new sub-directions of research. Future research is required to investigate specific directions and converge as well to construct a general paradigm in this field.

Comparing keywords plus of WOS and author keywords: A case study of patient adherence research

“…However, is Keywords Plus a representative parameter for the content and scientific concepts presented in articles? This question, which emerged as a follow-up question in a study of the knowledge structure of patient adherence (Zhang et al, 2012), has yet to be critically examined to the best knowledge of the investigators of this study.…”

Visualizing the knowledge structure of medication‐adherence research: A bibliometric analysis (1997‐2016)

“…First, the publications covered in this study are more abundant, including both articles and cited references from the Web of Science; however, only articles are included in study of Zhang et al Second, the research content is more comprehensive and is not only concerned with the countries, institutions, authors, journals, and research areas but also involves keyword co‐occurrence analysis and cited reference cluster analysis. Nevertheless, Zhang et al only involves co‐word analysis; thus, the findings can be used to more fully grasp the knowledge in this field. Last, the time span of the articles is broader, at nearly 20 years, but only 12 years (2000‐2011) in Zhang et al's study and just 8 years (2004‐2011) in Goodfellow et al's work, which can aid in a better understanding of the development and future directions of the medication‐adherence research field.…”

“…Nevertheless, Zhang et al only involves co‐word analysis; thus, the findings can be used to more fully grasp the knowledge in this field. Last, the time span of the articles is broader, at nearly 20 years, but only 12 years (2000‐2011) in Zhang et al's study and just 8 years (2004‐2011) in Goodfellow et al's work, which can aid in a better understanding of the development and future directions of the medication‐adherence research field.…”

Therapeutic Adherence: between saying and doing

“…Le attuali traiettorie della ricerca sulla aderenza finiscono così per comporre una mappa molto più complessa e molto meno centralizzata di quanto fosse nei primi anni ed il modello da convergente sta diventando divergente [2].Ma allora? Perché nonostante tutta questa indiscutibile mole di approfondimenti degli ultimi anni, l'aderenza dei pazienti alle terapie farmacologiche rimane un qualcosa che sembra meriti sempre ancora un ulteriore approfondimento teorico, un'altra descrizione più accurata, prima di cominciare a compiere davvero un'azione concreta sul singolo paziente?…”

“…Le attuali traiettorie della ricerca sulla aderenza finiscono così per comporre una mappa molto più complessa e molto meno centralizzata di quanto fosse nei primi anni ed il modello da convergente sta diventando divergente [2].…”