↓ Skip to main content

An inevitable wave of prescription drug monitoring programs in the context of prescription opioids: pros, cons and tensions

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology, August 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#6 of 322)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
13 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
84 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
An inevitable wave of prescription drug monitoring programs in the context of prescription opioids: pros, cons and tensions
Published in
BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology, August 2014
DOI 10.1186/2050-6511-15-46
Pubmed ID
Authors

M Mofizul Islam, Ian S McRae

Abstract

In an effort to control non-medical use and/or medical abuse of prescription drugs, particularly prescription opioids, electronic prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMP) have been introduced in North-American countries, Australia and some parts of Europe. Paradoxically, there are simultaneous pressures to increase opioid prescribing for the benefit of individual patients and to reduce it for the sake of public health, and this pressure warrants a delicate balance of appropriate therapeutic uses of these drugs with the risk of developing dependence. This article discusses pros and cons of PDMP in reducing diversion of prescription opioids, without hampering access to those medications for those with genuine needs, and highlights tensions around PDMP implementation.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Norway 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 82 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 24%
Researcher 10 12%
Student > Bachelor 10 12%
Other 8 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 8%
Other 20 24%
Unknown 9 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 31%
Social Sciences 8 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 6 7%
Other 17 20%
Unknown 14 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 39. 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 20 April 2020.
All research outputs
#541,584
of 15,467,953 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology
#6
of 322 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,050
of 201,562 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,467,953 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 322 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 201,562 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them