↓ Skip to main content

What Factors Predict Potentially Inappropriate Primary Care Prescribing in Older People?

Overview of attention for article published in Drugs & Aging, August 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
87 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
87 Mendeley
Title
What Factors Predict Potentially Inappropriate Primary Care Prescribing in Older People?
Published in
Drugs & Aging, August 2012
DOI 10.2165/00002512-200825080-00006
Pubmed ID
Authors

Iain M. Carey, Stephen De Wilde, Tess Harris, Christina Victor, Nicky Richards, Sean R. Hilton, Derek G. Cook

Abstract

Potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) in older people has been identified as a substantial problem, but few large population-based studies have investigated the underlying factors that predict it. To: (i) examine trends in PIP in UK older primary care patients; and (ii) assess factors associated with PIP. An analysis of routine, anonymized, computerized patient records of 201 UK general practices providing data to the DIN-LINK database between 1996 and 2005, which included approximately 230 000 registered patients per year aged > or = 65 years. The main outcome measures were the number of different drugs prescribed per patient annually and the percentage of patients prescribed a PIP drug (modified 2003 Beers criteria). These were assessed for all drugs, and then for selected sub-classes (analgesics, antidepressants and sedatives/anxiolytics). Whilst the number of drugs prescribed per patient increased, the percentage of subjects receiving a PIP drug declined from 32.2% in 1996 to 28.3% in 2005, largely due to a fall in co-proxamol (dextropropoxyphene/paracetamol [acetaminophen]) prescribing. In 2005, female gender, being older, more socio-economically deprived or in a care home were strongly associated with PIP. However, the number of drugs prescribed was strongly associated with these variables and the strongest predictor of PIP; adjusting for number of drugs dramatically reduced the strength of all other associations except female gender with PIP. Factors predicting PIP in drug sub-groups were similarly reduced when adjusted for polypharmacy. However, some age trends remained: in the oldest group (aged > or = 85 years), PIP of analgesics was less likely (odds ratio [OR] = 0.70, 95% CI 0.66, 0.75) while PIP of antidepressants was more likely (OR = 1.39, 95% CI 1.28, 1.51). PIP amongst older people in the UK, although declining, remains at a high level. The association of PIP with age, deprivation and care homes is largely explained by the higher overall prescribing rates in these groups. The overall rise in prescribing emphasizes that polypharmacy does not necessarily increase PIP and attempts to reduce PIP by focusing on polypharmacy have not been successful. Reductions in PIP have previously been achieved by introducing national guidelines (e.g. co-proxamol), but might also be achieved by alerting practitioners at the point of prescribing.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
Unknown 86 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 16%
Student > Master 14 16%
Researcher 13 15%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Other 6 7%
Other 21 24%
Unknown 12 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 41%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 13 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 8%
Psychology 4 5%
Computer Science 3 3%
Other 11 13%
Unknown 13 15%
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 08 January 2010.
All research outputs
#8,534,976
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Drugs & Aging
#602
of 1,293 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,302
of 187,863 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drugs & Aging
#145
of 372 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 1,293 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 187,863 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 372 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.