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 |
Why do family doctors prescribe potentially inappropriate medication to elderly patients?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Primary Care, July 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12875-016-0482-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Karen Voigt, Mandy Gottschall, Juliane Köberlein-Neu, Jeannine Schübel, Nadine Quint, Antje Bergmann |
| Abstract |
Based on changes in pharmacokinetics and -dynamics in elderly patients, there are potentially inappropriate medications (PIM) that should be avoided in patients aged ≥ 65 years. Current studies showed prescription rates of PIM between 22.5 and 28.4 % in the primary care setting. The evidence concerning reasons for PIM prescription by FPs is limited. This mixed method study consisted of three research parts: 1) semi-standardized content analysis of patients' records, 2) qualitative interviews with FPs using a) open questions and b) selected patient-specific case vignettes and 3) qualitative interviews with FPs' medical assistants. The integration of qualitative interviews was used to explain the quantitative results (triangulation design). PIM were identified according to the German PRISCUS list. Descriptive and multivariate statistical analysis was done using SPSS 22.0. Qualitative content analysis of interviews was used to classify the content of the interviews for indicating pertinent categories. All data were pseudonymously recorded and analyzed. Content analysis of 1846 patients' records and interviews with 7 related FPs were conducted. Elderly patients [n = 1241, mean age: 76, females: 56.6 %] were characterized in average by 8.3 documented chronic diagnosis. 23.9 % of elderly patients received at least one PIM prescription. Sedatives/hypnotics were the most frequent prescribed PIM-drugs (13.7 %). Mental disorders, gender and number of long-term medication were detected as predictors for the probability of a PIM prescription. Common reported reasons for PIM prescription by FPs concerned limited knowledge regarding PIM, limited applicability of PIM lists in daily practice, lack of time, having no alternatives in medication, stronger patient-related factors than age that influence prescription, own bad experiences regarding changes of medication or refusal of following prescriptions of sedative/hypnotics. It is essential to see FPs in a complex decision making situation with several influencing factors on their prescribing, including: patient-oriented prioritization, FPs' experiences in daily practice, FPs' knowledge regarding existing recommendations and their trust in it and organizational characteristics of FPs' daily medical practice. These pros and cons of PIM prescription in elderly patients should be considered in FPs' advanced training. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 112 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 111 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 21 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 20 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 14 | 13% |
| Unknown | 24 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 30 | 27% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 14 | 13% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 13 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 5% |
| Psychology | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 10 | 9% |
| Unknown | 33 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 June 2023.
All research outputs
#3,343,009
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from BMC Primary Care
#448
of 2,359 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,391
of 378,458 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Primary Care
#16
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,359 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 378,458 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.