↓ Skip to main content

Evaluating availability and price of essential medicines in Boston area (Massachusetts, USA) using WHO/HAI methodology

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice, April 2016
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 (#7 of 228)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 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
Evaluating availability and price of essential medicines in Boston area (Massachusetts, USA) using WHO/HAI methodology
Published in
Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40545-016-0059-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Abhishek Sharma, Lindsey Rorden, Margaret Ewen, Richard Laing

Abstract

Many patients even those with health insurance pay out-of-pocket for medicines. We investigated the availability and prices of essential medicines in the Boston area. Using the WHO/HAI methodology, availability and undiscounted price data for both originator brand (OB) and lowest price generic (LPG) equivalent versions of 25 essential medicines (14 prescription; 11 over-the-counter (OTC)) were obtained from 17 private pharmacies. The inclusion and prices of 26 essential medicines in seven pharmacy discount programs were also studied. The medicine prices were compared with international reference prices (IRPs). In surveyed pharmacies, the OB medicines were less available as compared to the generics. The OB and LPG versions of OTC medicines were 21.33 and 11.53 times the IRP, respectively. The median prices of prescription medicines were higher, with OB and LPG versions at 158.14 and 38.03 times the IRP, respectively. In studied pharmacy discount programs, the price ratios of surveyed medicines varied from 4.4-13.9. While noting the WHO target that consumers should pay no more than four times the IRPs, medicine prices were considerably higher in the Boston area. The prices for medicines included in the pharmacy discount programs were closest to WHO's target. Consumers should shop around, as medicine inclusion and prices vary across discount programs. In order for consumers to identify meaningful potential savings through comparison shopping, price transparency is needed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Ghana 1 3%
South Africa 1 3%
Unknown 33 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 26%
Researcher 5 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 11%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Student > Postgraduate 2 6%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 7 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 10 29%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 26%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 8 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 35. 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 26 August 2016.
All research outputs
#598,429
of 15,554,462 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice
#7
of 228 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,917
of 266,227 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,554,462 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 228 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 266,227 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 93% 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