↓ Skip to main content

Direct and indirect costs for adverse drug events identified in medical records across care levels, and their distribution among payers

Overview of attention for article published in Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Direct and indirect costs for adverse drug events identified in medical records across care levels, and their distribution among payers
Published in
Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, November 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.sapharm.2016.11.008
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jennie Natanaelsson, Katja M. Hakkarainen, Staffan Hägg, Karolina Andersson Sundell, Max Petzold, Clas Rehnberg, Anna K. Jönsson, Hanna Gyllensten

Abstract

Adverse drug events (ADEs) cause considerable costs in hospitals. However, little is known about costs caused by ADEs outside hospitals, effects on productivity, and how the costs are distributed among payers. To describe the direct and indirect costs caused by ADEs, and their distribution among payers. Furthermore, to describe the distribution of patient out-of-pocket costs and lost productivity caused by ADEs according to socio-economic characteristics. In a random sample of 5025 adults in a Swedish county, prevalence-based costs for ADEs were calculated. Two different methods were used: 1) based on resource use judged to be caused by ADEs, and 2) as costs attributable to ADEs by comparing costs among individuals with ADEs to costs among matched controls. Payers of costs caused by ADEs were identified in medical records among those with ADEs (n = 596), and costs caused to individual patients were described by socio-economic characteristics. Costs for resource use caused by ADEs were €505 per patient with ADEs (95% confidence interval €345-665), of which 38% were indirect costs. Compared to matched controls, the costs attributable to ADEs were €1631, of which €410 were indirect costs. The local health authorities paid 58% of the costs caused by ADEs. Women had higher productivity loss than men (€426 vs. €109, p = 0.018). Out-of-pocket costs displaced a larger proportion of the disposable income among low-income earners than higher income earners (0.7% vs. 0.2%-0.3%). We used two methods to identify costs for ADEs, both identifying indirect costs as an important component of the overall costs for ADEs. Although the largest payers of costs caused by ADEs were the local health authorities responsible for direct costs, employers and patients costs for lost productivity contributed substantially. Our results indicate inequalities in costs caused by ADEs, by sex and income.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 38 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 16%
Student > Master 5 13%
Other 3 8%
Researcher 3 8%
Student > Bachelor 2 5%
Other 7 18%
Unknown 12 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 11%
Social Sciences 4 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 8%
Computer Science 2 5%
Other 6 16%
Unknown 12 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 14 December 2017.
All research outputs
#8,534,976
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy
#912
of 1,701 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#141,388
of 415,443 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy
#17
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,701 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. 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 415,443 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.