↓ Skip to main content

Essential psychiatric medicines: wrong selection, high consumption and social problems

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 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
Essential psychiatric medicines: wrong selection, high consumption and social problems
Published in
BMC Public Health, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12889-015-2589-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Izabela Fulone, Silvio Barberato-Filho, Michele Félix dos Santos, Carolina de Lima Rossi, Gordon Guyatt, Luciane Cruz Lopes

Abstract

The World Health Organization Essential Medicines List (WHO-LIST) and national essential medicines lists differ because many countries face significant challenges, such as product availability, cost, product quality and epidemiological disease profiles. In Brazil, governments pay for drugs that are included on the federal, state and municipal government (REMUME) lists. The extent to which municipal lists differ from state and national lists and from the WHO-LIST is unclear. We investigate the use of the WHO-LISTas a tool with which to evaluate the selection process for the essential psychiatric medicines in the public system coverage list of Brazilian communities (cities) and the use of the target drugs. Municipal health secretaries were interviewed regarding the selection process for REMUMEs and the antidepressants and benzodiazepines included in REMUMEs and reference lists. We calculated the use of REMUME drugs that appeared or did not appear on reference lists according to the defined daily dose (DDD) per 10,000 inhabitants. Local physicians and pharmacists without specific training or explicit criteria developed the REMUMEs. Of the 13 drugs and 24 products (i.e., the different dosages of these 13 drugs) in the REMUMEs, 8 drugs and 10 products were included in at least one reference list and in one municipal list; 4 drugs and 6 products were included in at least one reference list but in none of the municipal lists; and 7 drugs and 8 products were included in at least one municipal list but in none of the reference lists. The antidepressants that appeared in at least one municipal list but in none of the reference lists represented 25.1 % (mean 60.9 DDD/10,000 inhabitants-day) of the usage. The benzodiazepines that appeared in at least one of the municipal lists but in none of the reference lists represented 14.7 % mean 18.5 DDD/10,000 inhabitants-day) of the usage. Brazilian cities have no rigorous processes for selecting the drugs that appear on their lists, and drugs that do not appear on the reference lists represent a significant proportion of antidepressant and benzodiazepine use, resulting in public health and social problems.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 3%
Belgium 1 3%
Brazil 1 3%
Unknown 33 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 25%
Researcher 8 22%
Other 5 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 7 19%
Unknown 2 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 28%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 8%
Psychology 3 8%
Social Sciences 2 6%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 5 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 January 2016.
All research outputs
#5,259,160
of 7,028,853 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#5,434
of 6,366 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#218,463
of 317,380 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#202
of 245 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,028,853 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,366 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% 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 317,380 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 245 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.