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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| 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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 40% |
| India | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 40% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 40% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Ghana | 1 | 2% |
| South Africa | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 50 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 12 | 23% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 10% |
| Researcher | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 8 | 15% |
| Unknown | 14 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 17 | 33% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 19% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 6% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 3 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Unknown | 15 | 29% |
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
#967,949
of 22,860,626 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice
#15
of 407 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,527
of 300,859 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice
#1
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,860,626 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 407 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. 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 300,859 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 11 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 90% of its contemporaries.