↓ Skip to main content

Cost Effectiveness of Support for People Starting a New Medication for a Long-Term Condition Through Community Pharmacies: An Economic Evaluation of the New Medicine Service (NMS) Compared with…

Overview of attention for article published in PharmacoEconomics, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#7 of 1,994)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
9 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
44 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
220 Mendeley
Title
Cost Effectiveness of Support for People Starting a New Medication for a Long-Term Condition Through Community Pharmacies: An Economic Evaluation of the New Medicine Service (NMS) Compared with Normal Practice
Published in
PharmacoEconomics, August 2017
DOI 10.1007/s40273-017-0554-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rachel A. Elliott, Lukasz Tanajewski, Georgios Gkountouras, Anthony J. Avery, Nick Barber, Rajnikant Mehta, Matthew J. Boyd, Asam Latif, Antony Chuter, Justin Waring

Abstract

The English community pharmacy New Medicine Service (NMS) significantly increases patient adherence to medicines, compared with normal practice. We examined the cost effectiveness of NMS compared with normal practice by combining adherence improvement and intervention costs with the effect of increased adherence on patient outcomes and healthcare costs. We developed Markov models for diseases targeted by the NMS (hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma and antiplatelet regimens) to assess the impact of patients' non-adherence. Clinical event probability, treatment pathway, resource use and costs were extracted from literature and costing tariffs. Incremental costs and outcomes associated with each disease were incorporated additively into a composite probabilistic model and combined with adherence rates and intervention costs from the trial. Costs per extra quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) were calculated from the perspective of NHS England, using a lifetime horizon. NMS generated a mean of 0.05 (95% CI 0.00-0.13) more QALYs per patient, at a mean reduced cost of -£144 (95% CI -769 to 73). The NMS dominates normal practice with a probability of 0.78 [incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) -£3166 per QALY]. NMS has a 96.7% probability of cost effectiveness compared with normal practice at a willingness to pay of £20,000 per QALY. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that targeting each disease with NMS has a probability over 0.90 of cost effectiveness compared with normal practice at a willingness to pay of £20,000 per QALY. Our study suggests that the NMS increased patient medicine adherence compared with normal practice, which translated into increased health gain at reduced overall cost. ClinicalTrials.gov Trial reference number NCT01635361 ( http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01635361 ). Current Controlled trials: Trial reference number ISRCTN 23560818 ( http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN23560818/ ; DOI 10.1186/ISRCTN23560818 ). UK Clinical Research Network (UKCRN) study 12494 ( http://public.ukcrn.org.uk/Search/StudyDetail.aspx?StudyID=12494 ). Department of Health Policy Research Programme.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 44 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 220 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 220 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 32 15%
Researcher 24 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 10%
Student > Bachelor 16 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 5%
Other 39 18%
Unknown 76 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 41 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 37 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 8 4%
Social Sciences 6 3%
Other 28 13%
Unknown 86 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 104. 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 13 February 2024.
All research outputs
#401,200
of 25,360,284 outputs
Outputs from PharmacoEconomics
#7
of 1,994 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,536
of 323,509 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PharmacoEconomics
#1
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,360,284 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,994 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 323,509 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.