↓ Skip to main content

Potentially inappropriate medications among older adults in Pelotas, Southern Brazil

Overview of attention for article published in Revista de Saúde Pública, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
116 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
Potentially inappropriate medications among older adults in Pelotas, Southern Brazil
Published in
Revista de Saúde Pública, June 2017
DOI 10.1590/s1518-8787.2017051006556
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bárbara Heather Lutz, Vanessa Irribarem Avena Miranda, Andréa Dâmaso Bertoldi

Abstract

To assess the use of potentially inappropriate medications among older adults. This is a population-based cross-sectional study with 1,451 older individuals aged 60 years or more in the city of Pelotas, State of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, in 2014. We have investigated the use of medications in the last 15 days. Using the Beers criteria (2012), we have verified the use of potentially inappropriate medications and their relationship with socioeconomic and demographic variables, polypharmacy, self-medication, and burden of disease. Among the 5,700 medications used, 5,651 could be assessed as to being inappropriate. Of these, 937 were potentially inappropriate for the older adults according to the 2012 Beers criteria (16.6%). Approximately 42.4% of the older adults studied used at least one medication considered as potentially inappropriate. The group of medications for the nervous system accounted for 48.9% of the total of the potentially inappropriate medications. In the adjusted analysis, the variables female, advanced age, white race, low educational level, polypharmacy, self-medication, and burden of disease were associated with the use of potentially inappropriate medications. It is important to known the possible consequences of the use of medication among older adults. Special attention should be given to the older adults who use polypharmacy. Specific lists should be created with more appropriate medications for the older population in the National Essential Medicine List. Avaliar o uso de medicamentos potencialmente inadequados entre idosos. Estudo transversal de base populacional com 1.451 idosos com 60 anos ou mais em Pelotas, RS, em 2014. Investigou-se o uso de medicamentos nos últimos 15 dias. Utilizando os critérios de Beers (2012), verificou-se a potencial inadequação dos medicamentos e sua relação com variáveis socioeconômicas e demográficas, polifarmácia, automedicação e carga de doença. Dentre os 5.700 medicamentos utilizados, 5.651 puderam ser avaliados quanto à inadequação. Destes, 937 eram potencialmente inadequados para idosos segundo os critérios de Beers de 2012 (16,6%). Cerca de 42,4% dos idosos usaram no mínimo um medicamento considerado potencialmente inapropriado. O grupo de medicamentos para o sistema nervoso correspondeu a 48,9% do total de medicamentos potencialmente inadequados. Na análise ajustada, as variáveis sexo feminino, idade avançada, cor da pele branca, baixa escolaridade, polifarmácia, automedicação e carga de doença mostraram-se associadas ao uso de medicamentos potencialmente inadequados. É importante que sejam bem conhecidas as possíveis consequências do uso de medicamentos entre idosos. Atenção especial deve ser dada aos idosos que fazem uso de polifarmácia. É necessário existir listas específicas com medicamentos mais adequados para uso em idosos na Relação Nacional de Medicamentos Essenciais.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 116 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 116 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 23 20%
Student > Master 18 16%
Student > Postgraduate 10 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 5%
Professor 6 5%
Other 15 13%
Unknown 38 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 23 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 21 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 3%
Other 5 4%
Unknown 45 39%
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 08 January 2023.
All research outputs
#6,498,682
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Revista de Saúde Pública
#187
of 1,138 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#95,979
of 329,802 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Revista de Saúde Pública
#4
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 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 1,138 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 329,802 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.