↓ Skip to main content

Promoting quality use of medicines in South-East Asia: reports from country situational analyses

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 Mendeley
Title
Promoting quality use of medicines in South-East Asia: reports from country situational analyses
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12913-018-3333-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kathleen Anne Holloway, Anita Kotwani, Gitanjali Batmanabane, Budiono Santoso, Sauwakon Ratanawijitrasin, David Henry

Abstract

Irrational use of medicines is widespread in the South-East Asia Region (SEAR), where policy implementation to encourage quality use of medicines (QUM) is often low. The aim was to determine whether public-sector QUM is better in SEAR countries implementing essential medicines (EM) policies than in those not implementing them. Data on six QUM indicators and 25 EM policies were extracted from situational analysis reports of 20 country (2-week) visits made during 2010-2015. The average difference (as percent) for the QUM indicators between countries implementing versus not implementing specific policies was calculated. Policies associated with better (> 1%) QUM were included in regression of a composite QUM score versus total number of policies implemented. Twenty-two policies were associated with better (> 1%) QUM. Twelve policies were associated with 3.6-9.5% significantly better use (p < 0.05), namely: standard treatment guidelines; formulary; a government unit to promote QUM; continuing health worker education on prescribing by government; limiting over-the-counter (OTC) availability of systemic antibiotics; disallowing public-sector prescriber revenue from medicines sales; not charging fees at the point of care; monitoring advertisements of OTC medicines; public education on QUM; and a good drug supply system. There was significant correlation between the number of policies implemented out of 22 and the composite QUM score (r = 0.71, r2 = 0.50, p < 0.05). Country situational analyses allowed rapid data collection that showed EM policies are associated with better QUM. SEAR countries should implement all such policies.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 45 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 20%
Researcher 5 11%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Other 4 9%
Lecturer 3 7%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 15 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 11%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 7%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 15 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 06 July 2018.
All research outputs
#5,829,891
of 23,094,276 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#2,580
of 7,739 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#99,778
of 327,553 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#108
of 218 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,094,276 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,739 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 327,553 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 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 218 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.