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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of a Physician-Implemented Medication Screening Tool in Older Hospitalised Patients in Ireland
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Drugs & Aging, July 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40266-018-0564-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gary L. O’Brien, Denis O’Mahony, Paddy Gillespie, Mark Mulcahy, Valerie Walshe, Marie N. O’Connor, David O’Sullivan, James Gallagher, Stephen Byrne |
| Abstract |
A recent randomised controlled trial conducted in an Irish University teaching hospital that evaluated a physician-implemented medication screening tool, demonstrated positive outcomes in terms of a reduction in incident adverse drug reactions. The present study objective was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of physicians applying this screening tool to older hospitalised patients compared with usual hospital care in the context of the earlier randomised controlled trial. We used a cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a conventional outcome analysis in a cluster randomised controlled trial. Patients in the intervention arm (n = 360) received a multifactorial intervention consisting of medicines reconciliation, communication with patients' senior medical team, and generation of a pharmaceutical care plan in addition to usual medical and pharmaceutical care. Control arm patients (n = 372) received usual medical and pharmaceutical care only. Incremental cost effectiveness was examined in terms of costs to the healthcare system and an outcome measure of adverse drug reactions during inpatient hospital stay. Uncertainty in the analysis was explored using a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve. On average, the intervention arm was more costly but was also more effective. Compared with usual care (control), the intervention was associated with a non-statistically significant increase of €877 (95% confidence interval - €1807, €3561) in the mean healthcare cost, and a statistically significant decrease of - 0.164 (95% confidence interval - 0.257, - 0.070) in the mean number of adverse drug reaction events per patient. The associated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per adverse drug reaction averted was €5358. The probability of the intervention being cost effective at threshold values of €0, €5000 and €10,000 was 0.236, 0.455 and 0.680, respectively. Based on the evidence presented, this physician-led intervention is not likely to be cost effective compared with usual hospital care. To inform future healthcare policy decisions in this field, more economic analyses of structured medication reviews by other healthcare professionals and by computerised clinical decision support software need to be conducted. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Ireland | 6 | 55% |
| Unknown | 5 | 45% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 73% |
| Scientists | 2 | 18% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 68 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 9 | 13% |
| Researcher | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 9 | 13% |
| Unknown | 26 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 19% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 8 | 12% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 7% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 3 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 7 | 10% |
| Unknown | 30 | 44% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 October 2018.
All research outputs
#4,174,977
of 23,342,092 outputs
Outputs from Drugs & Aging
#269
of 1,223 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,608
of 327,736 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drugs & Aging
#6
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,342,092 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,223 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 327,736 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.