↓ Skip to main content

The Effect of Copayments for Prescriptions on Adherence to Prescription Medicines in Publicly Insured Populations; A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, May 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
43 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
102 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
156 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
The Effect of Copayments for Prescriptions on Adherence to Prescription Medicines in Publicly Insured Populations; A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Published in
PLOS ONE, May 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0064914
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sarah-Jo Sinnott, Claire Buckley, David O′Riordan, Colin Bradley, Helen Whelton

Abstract

Copayments are intended to decrease third party expenditure on pharmaceuticals, particularly those regarded as less essential. However, copayments are associated with decreased use of all medicines. Publicly insured populations encompass some vulnerable patient groups such as older individuals and low income groups, who may be especially susceptible to medication non-adherence when required to pay. Non-adherence has potential consequences of increased morbidity and costs elsewhere in the system.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 43 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 156 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
Israel 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 150 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 30 19%
Student > Master 28 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 10%
Other 11 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 6%
Other 34 22%
Unknown 28 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 48 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 10%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 14 9%
Social Sciences 11 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 11 7%
Other 22 14%
Unknown 35 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. 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 June 2019.
All research outputs
#1,048,542
of 24,076,257 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#13,814
of 206,977 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,418
of 198,103 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#334
of 4,768 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,076,257 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 206,977 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 198,103 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,768 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.