↓ Skip to main content

Doctors and pharmacists provision and opinions of medicines information leaflets in New Zealand

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
50 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
Doctors and pharmacists provision and opinions of medicines information leaflets in New Zealand
Published in
International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy, April 2018
DOI 10.1007/s11096-018-0635-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Amber Young, June Tordoff, Sharon Leitch, Alesha Smith

Abstract

Background Providing verbal medicines information to patients may be insufficient. Providing medicine information leaflets could support verbal information, however New Zealand health professionals' opinions or use of leaflets is unknown. Objective To examine self-reported provision and health professionals' views about medicine information leaflets and to determine their support for tailoring patient leaflets. Setting A cross sectional survey of general practitioners (GPs) and community pharmacists in New Zealand primary care. Method GPs and pharmacists completed validated questionnaires. Data was collected using SurveyMonkey® and where applicable, Chi squared analysis was carried out. Main outcome measures Frequency of leaflet provision, how leaflets are used in practice and why, likes and dislikes of available leaflets, and opinions on providing tailored information. Results 143 GPs and 126 pharmacists responded. For new medicines, significantly more pharmacists than GPs reported providing leaflets all or most of the time. For repeat medicines, leaflets were more likely to be given only on request. Leaflets were given to ensure patients are well-informed. Most GPs and pharmacists report discussing sections of leaflets with patients. The likes and dislikes of leaflets were mostly about design and content. Both professions support tailoring leaflets to meet individual's requirements. Conclusions Provision of medicines information needs to be re-evaluated. Relying on verbal communication is inadequate and leaflet provision appears to be suboptimal. Making leaflets more patient-centred and accessible could improve health professionals' perceptions and use of them. Automated creation and provision of tailored summary leaflets would be beneficial. Further advantage could be gained by digital patient access.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 50 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 16%
Researcher 8 16%
Student > Bachelor 7 14%
Student > Master 4 8%
Lecturer 2 4%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 16 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 14 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 10%
Psychology 4 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Linguistics 1 2%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 19 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 June 2018.
All research outputs
#14,388,641
of 23,043,346 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
#727
of 1,105 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#185,997
of 327,380 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
#19
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,043,346 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,105 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 327,380 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.