| Title |
Association of potentially inappropriate medications with outcomes of inpatient geriatric rehabilitation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Zeitschrift für Gerontologie und Geriatrie, October 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00391-017-1328-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Madeleine Bachmann, Jan Kool, Peter Oesch, Marcel Weber, Stefan Bachmann |
| Abstract |
Higher age is associated with multimorbidity, which may lead to polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate medication (PIM). To evaluate whether PIM on admission for geriatric inpatient rehabilitation is associated with rehabilitation outcome regarding mobility and quality of life. A total of 210 patients were included. Medications at hospital admission were analyzed with the Screening Tool of Older Persons' potentially inappropriate Prescriptions (STOPP) and the number of PIMs individual patients were taking was determined. The study population was then divided into two groups, one with and one without PIM. The main rehabilitation outcomes, quality of life and mobility, were assessed on admission and discharge. Associations between PIM and the main outcomes were analyzed using the two-tailed Student's t-test and Spearman correlations. In total 131 PIMs were identified by STOPP. Of the patients 91 (43%) were taking at least 1 PIM, and 119 patients (57%) were not taking any PIM. Patients with no PIM had a significantly better quality of life on admission (p < 0.05) and discharge (p < 0.005). The number of PIMs was not associated with the rehabilitation outcomes mobility and quality of life (Spearman's ρ = -0.01, p = 0.89 and ρ = -0.02, p = 0.7, respectively). The quality of life and mobility increased identically in both groups from admission to discharge but the group with PIM did not reach the levels of those without PIM. The use of PIM may have a negative impact on the quality of life of elderly people but patients with and without PIM achieved comparable improvements in quality of life and mobility. Further studies are required to assess the long-term outcomes of patients taking PIM following inpatient rehabilitation. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 34 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 12% |
| Researcher | 4 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Unknown | 12 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 21% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 5 | 15% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 12% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 14 | 41% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 30 November 2017.
All research outputs
#15,624,874
of 23,846,647 outputs
Outputs from Zeitschrift für Gerontologie und Geriatrie
#196
of 354 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#198,214
of 330,972 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Zeitschrift für Gerontologie und Geriatrie
#4
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,846,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 354 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 330,972 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.