↓ Skip to main content

Toward an Improved Multi-Criteria Drug Harm Assessment Process and Evidence-Based Drug Policies

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Pharmacology, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
twitter
10 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

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
Toward an Improved Multi-Criteria Drug Harm Assessment Process and Evidence-Based Drug Policies
Published in
Frontiers in Pharmacology, August 2018
DOI 10.3389/fphar.2018.00898
Pubmed ID
Authors

Veljko Dubljević

Abstract

Drug scheduling within the international system of drug control and national legislation has been recently criticized as having insufficient footing in scientific evidence. The legal harms related to non-medical uses of certain drugs (e.g., cannabis) have arguably exceeded their physiological and social harmfulness compared to legally available substances (e.g., tobacco), which prompted some states to explore alternative regulation policies, similar to the drug regime in the Netherlands. Other legally prescribed drugs (e.g., stimulants) created a surge of interest for "better than well" uses, while yet others (e.g., opioids) caused an epidemic of dramatic proportions in North America. The evidence-based multi-criteria drug harm scale (MCDHS) has been proposed as a way of grounding policy in the actual degree of harmfulness of drugs. Indeed, the scale has had great ramifications in several areas of policy, and it has been used extensively in distinct lines of interdisciplinary research. However, some aspects of MCDHS remain disputed. For example, the way the data has been generated has been criticized as suffering from "expert bias." This article reviews strengths and weaknesses of evidence provided with the use of MCDHS. Furthermore, the author argues that the shortcomings of MCDHS can be resolved by offering methodological improvements. These include (1) dissociating the harms of use from harms of abuse, (2) adding the perspectives of people who use drugs, pharmacists, and general medical practitioners along with the expert assessments, and (3) focusing on subsets of drugs to allow for comparison without mixing different social contexts of drug use. The paper concludes with outlines of substance subset-specific extensions of the MCDHS and related policy proposals in the four areas identified as generating the most controversy: non-medical use of opioids, "study aid" uses of stimulants, shifting trends in nicotine containing products, and regulation of medical and recreational uses of cannabis.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 35 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 23%
Student > Bachelor 7 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 14%
Researcher 3 9%
Professor 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 9 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 20%
Psychology 5 14%
Social Sciences 3 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 6 17%
Unknown 11 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. 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 12 December 2023.
All research outputs
#1,286,875
of 25,163,621 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#476
of 19,325 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,848
of 339,366 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#13
of 392 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,163,621 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 19,325 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 339,366 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 392 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 96% of its contemporaries.