↓ Skip to main content

Retrospective, multicohort analysis of the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) to determine differences in the cost of medication wastage, dispensing fees and prescriber time of issuing either…

Overview of attention for article published in BMJ Open, December 2017
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 (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
16 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 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
Retrospective, multicohort analysis of the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) to determine differences in the cost of medication wastage, dispensing fees and prescriber time of issuing either short (<60 days) or long (≥60 days) prescription lengths in primary care for common, chronic conditions in the UK
Published in
BMJ Open, December 2017
DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019382
Pubmed ID
Authors

Brett Doble, Rupert Payne, Amelia Harshfield, Edward C F Wilson

Abstract

To investigate patterns of early repeat prescriptions and treatment switching over an 11-year period to estimate differences in the cost of medication wastage, dispensing fees and prescriber time for short (<60 days) and long (≥60 days) prescription lengths from the perspective of the National Health Service in the UK. Retrospective, multiple cohort study of primary care prescriptions from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Five random samples of 50 000 patients each prescribed oral drugs for (1) glucose control in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM); (2) hypertension in T2DM; (3) statins (lipid management) in T2DM; (4) secondary prevention of myocardial infarction; and (5) depression. The volume of medication wastage from early repeat prescriptions and three other types of treatment switches was quantified and costed. Dispensing fees and prescriber time were also determined. Total unnecessary costs (TUC; cost of medication wastage, dispensing fees and prescriber time) associated with <60 day and ≥60 day prescriptions, standardised to a 120-day period, were then compared. Longer prescription lengths were associated with more medication waste per prescription. However, when including dispensing fees and prescriber time, longer prescription lengths resulted in lower TUC. This finding was consistent across all five cohorts. Savings ranged from £8.38 to £12.06 per prescription per 120 days if a single long prescription was issued instead of multiple short prescriptions. Prescriber time costs accounted for the largest component of TUC. Shorter prescription lengths could potentially reduce medication wastage, but they may also increase dispensing fees and/or the time burden of issuing prescriptions.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 48 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 23%
Researcher 10 21%
Other 8 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Student > Master 3 6%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 10 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 17%
Psychology 7 15%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 13%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 2%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 13 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 43. 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 25 March 2020.
All research outputs
#532,070
of 15,963,869 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#1,032
of 14,642 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,884
of 410,976 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#47
of 591 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,963,869 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 14,642 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 410,976 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 591 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 92% of its contemporaries.