↓ Skip to main content

Potentially Inappropriate Prescribing Among People with Dementia in Primary Care: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study Using the Enhanced Prescribing Database

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Alzheimer's Disease, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 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
Potentially Inappropriate Prescribing Among People with Dementia in Primary Care: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study Using the Enhanced Prescribing Database
Published in
Journal of Alzheimer's Disease, June 2016
DOI 10.3233/jad-151177
Pubmed ID
Authors

Heather E. Barry, Janine A. Cooper, Cristín Ryan, A. Peter Passmore, A. Louise Robinson, Gerard J. Molloy, Carmel M. Darcy, Hilary Buchanan, Carmel M. Hughes

Abstract

Little is known about prescribing appropriateness for community-dwelling people with dementia (PWD). To estimate potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) prevalence among PWD in primary care in Northern Ireland, and to investigate associations between PIP, polypharmacy, age, and gender. A retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted, using data from the Enhanced Prescribing Database. Patients were eligible if a medicine indicated for dementia management was dispensed to them during 1 January 2013-31 December 2013. Polypharmacy was indicated by use of ≥4 repeat medications from different drug groups. A subset of the Screening Tool of Older Persons Potentially Inappropriate Prescriptions (STOPP) criteria, comprising 36 indicators, was applied to the dataset. Overall prevalence of PIP and the prevalence per each STOPP criterion was calculated as a proportion of all eligible persons in the dataset. Logistic regression was used to investigate associations between PIP, polypharmacy, age, and gender. The study population comprised 6826 patients. Polypharmacy was observed in 81.5% (n = 5,564) of patients. PIP prevalence during the study period was 64.4% (95% CI 63.2- 65.5; n = 4,393). The most common instance of PIP was the use of anticholinergic/antimuscarinic medications (25.2%; 95% CI 24.2-26.2; n = 1,718). In multivariable analyses, both polypharmacy and gender (being female) were associated with PIP, with odds ratios of 7.6 (95% CI 6.6-8.7) and 1.3 (95% CI 1.2-1.4), respectively. No association was observed between PIP and age, after adjustments for gender and polypharmacy. This study identified a high prevalence of PIP in community-dwelling PWD. Future interventions may need to focus on certain therapeutic categories and polypharmacy.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
Unknown 78 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 15%
Researcher 11 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Other 16 20%
Unknown 14 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 33%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 15 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 8%
Psychology 6 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 19 24%

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 17 April 2016.
All research outputs
#9,550,618
of 12,430,577 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Alzheimer's Disease
#3,094
of 3,502 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#172,493
of 268,931 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Alzheimer's Disease
#208
of 221 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,430,577 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,502 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.1. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 268,931 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 221 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.