↓ Skip to main content

A comparison of estimated drug costs of potentially inappropriate medications between older patients receiving nurse home visit services and patients receiving pharmacist home visit services: a cross-s…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
4 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 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
A comparison of estimated drug costs of potentially inappropriate medications between older patients receiving nurse home visit services and patients receiving pharmacist home visit services: a cross-sectional and propensity score analysis
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, February 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12913-015-0732-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jun Hamano, Sachiko Ozone, Yasuharu Tokuda

Abstract

There have been no multicenter studies that estimated the relations of either nurse or pharmacist home visit program to drug costs of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs). This study aimed to establish whether patients who used nurse or pharmacist home visit programs (nurse or pharmacist program) had lower drug costs of PIMs than those who did not use nurse or pharmacist programs for older patients living at home. This cross-sectional study was conducted in home care settings in Japan, involving 430 patients aged 65 or older, of whom 276 were female. All received regular home visits from five clinics between May and December 2013. After the PIMs were identified with the Screening Tool of Older Persons' potentially inappropriate Prescriptions (STOPP) criteria, we estimated the drug costs based on actual pharmaceutical prices and measured against who using nurse or pharmacist programs after a propensity score weighted adjustment. Patients who used nurse programs had lower drug cost of PIMs than those who did not use, but it was not significantly different (5.9 ± 13.1 vs 7.1 ± 13.9 USD per month, P = 0.199). The cost of PIMs for patients who used pharmacist programs also had no difference. (7.2 ± 14.5 vs 5.5 ± 11.5 USD per month, P = 0.06). In the patient groups who used nurse programs, patients who also used pharmacist programs had significantly higher costs of PIMs than those who used only nurse programs (5.5 ± 13.9 vs 2.5 ± 6.0 USD per month, P = 0.006). In patients group who did not use pharmacist programs, patients who only used nurse programs had significantly lower costs of PIMs than those who did not use nurse programs (3.6 ± 7.7 vs 5.8 ± 12.7 USD per month, P = 0.022). Patients who used nurse program have a trend towards lower drug costs of PIMs than those who used nurse and pharmacist program or pharmacist program alone. Although this study tried to adjust the potential confounders as possible as we could by using propensity score analysis, further studies are needed to confirm our results.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 50 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 19%
Student > Master 9 17%
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Other 12 23%
Unknown 2 4%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 13 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 19%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 8%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 6 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 17 November 2015.
All research outputs
#514,779
of 6,577,121 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#227
of 2,610 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,235
of 175,406 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#5
of 70 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 6,577,121 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,610 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 175,406 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 70 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.