↓ Skip to main content

Determinants of utilisation differences for cancer medicines in Belgium, Scotland and Sweden

Overview of attention for article published in HEPAC Health Economics in Prevention and Care, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 Mendeley
Title
Determinants of utilisation differences for cancer medicines in Belgium, Scotland and Sweden
Published in
HEPAC Health Economics in Prevention and Care, December 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10198-016-0855-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alessandra Ferrario

Abstract

Little comparative evidence is available on utilisation of cancer medicines in different countries and its determinants. The aim of this study was to develop a statistical model to test the correlation between utilisation and possible determinants in selected European countries. A sample of 31 medicines for cancer treatment that obtained EU-wide marketing authorisation between 2000 and 2012 was selected. Annual data on medicines' utilisation covering the in- and out-patient public sectors were obtained from national authorities between 2008 and 2013. Possible determinants of utilisation were extracted from HTA reports and complemented by contacts with key informants. A longitudinal mixed effect model was fitted to test possible determinants of medicines utilisation in Belgium, Scotland and Sweden. In the all-country model, the number of indications reimbursed positively correlated with increased consumption of medicines [one indication 2.6, 95% CI (1.8-3.6); two indications 2.4, 95% CI (1.4-4.3); three indications 4.9, 95% CI (2.2-10.9); all P < 0.01], years since EU-wide marketing authorisation [1.2, 95% CI (1.02-1.4); p < 0.05], price per DDD [0.9, 95% CI (0.998-0.999), P < 0.01], and Prescrire rating [0.5, 95% CI (0.3-0.9), P < 0.05] after adjusting for time and other covariates. In this study, the most important correlates of increased utilisation in a sample of cancer medicines introduced in the past 15 years were: medicines coverage and time since marketing authorisation. Prices had a negative effect on consumption in Belgium and Sweden. The positive impact of financial MEAs in Scotland suggests that the latter may remove the regressive effect of list prices on consumption.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 44 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 30%
Researcher 5 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 11%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Other 8 18%
Unknown 7 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 27%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 20%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 7%
Social Sciences 3 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 7%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 10 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 09 November 2020.
All research outputs
#7,414,573
of 25,540,105 outputs
Outputs from HEPAC Health Economics in Prevention and Care
#494
of 1,309 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#124,076
of 421,134 outputs
Outputs of similar age from HEPAC Health Economics in Prevention and Care
#15
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,540,105 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,309 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 421,134 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 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 50% of its contemporaries.