| Title |
Does Economic Incentive Matter for Rational Use of Medicine? China’s Experience from the Essential Medicines Program
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PharmacoEconomics, June 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40273-013-0068-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mingsheng Chen, Lijie Wang, Wen Chen, Luying Zhang, Hongli Jiang, Wenhui Mao |
| Abstract |
Before the new round of healthcare reform in China, primary healthcare providers could obtain a fixed 15 % or greater mark-up of profits by prescribing and selling medicines. There were concerns that this perverse incentive was a key cause of irrational medicine use. China's new Essential Medicines Program (EMP) was launched in 2009 as part of the national health sector reform initiatives. One of its core policies was to eliminate primary care providers' economic incentives to overprescribe or prescribe unnecessarily expensive drugs, which were regarded as consequences of China's traditional financing system for health institutions. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| New Zealand | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 109 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 2% |
| Macao | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 106 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 22 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 19 | 17% |
| Researcher | 14 | 13% |
| Other | 6 | 6% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 21 | 19% |
| Unknown | 21 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 26 | 24% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 13 | 12% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 9% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 7 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 20 | 18% |
| Unknown | 26 | 24% |
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 08 January 2023.
All research outputs
#7,207,940
of 23,506,136 outputs
Outputs from PharmacoEconomics
#821
of 1,881 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,350
of 197,148 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PharmacoEconomics
#4
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,506,136 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,881 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 197,148 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 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 54% of its contemporaries.