↓ Skip to main content

Efecto de la crisis económica sobre el consumo de psicofármacos en Asturias

Overview of attention for article published in Gaceta Sanitaria, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 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
Efecto de la crisis económica sobre el consumo de psicofármacos en Asturias
Published in
Gaceta Sanitaria, November 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.gaceta.2016.02.006
Pubmed ID
Authors

María Luisa Nicieza-García, Julio C. Alonso-Lorenzo, Patricio Suárez-Gil, Natalia Rilla-Villar

Abstract

To assess whether the economic crisis of 2008 has changed the consumption of anxiolytics, hypnotics-sedatives and antidepressants in Asturias (Spain). We conducted a descriptive study of drug use from 2003 -2013. The defined daily doses of 1000 inhabitants per day (DHD) were calculated for anxiolytics, hypnotics-sedatives and antidepressants. Linear regression coefficients (b) of the DHD were obtained for the pre-crisis period (2003-2008) and the crisis period (2009-2013). The consumption of anxiolytics increased by 40.25%, that of hypnotics by 88.11% and that of antidepressants by 80.93%. For anxiolytics: b-(2003-2008)=4.38 DDI/year and b-(2009-2013)=1.08 DDI/year. For hypnotics-sedatives: b-(2003-2008)=2.30 DDI/year and b-(2009-2013)=0.40 DDI/year. For antidepressants: b-(2003-2008)=5.79 DDI/year and b-(2009-2013)=2.83 DDI/year. The rise in consumption of the three subgroups during the crisis period was lower than that of the pre-crisis period. This study does not confirm the influence of the economic crisis on the rise in consumption of these drugs.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 20 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 4 20%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 15%
Student > Master 3 15%
Researcher 2 10%
Other 3 15%
Unknown 2 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 35%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 25%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Social Sciences 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 3 15%

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 10 January 2017.
All research outputs
#12,447,678
of 21,255,122 outputs
Outputs from Gaceta Sanitaria
#494
of 952 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#203,303
of 419,191 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Gaceta Sanitaria
#8
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,255,122 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 952 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 419,191 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.