↓ Skip to main content

Halo and spillover effect illustrations for selected beneficial medical devices and drugs

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 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
Halo and spillover effect illustrations for selected beneficial medical devices and drugs
Published in
BMC Public Health, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12889-016-3595-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Brent D. Kerger, Autumn Bernal, Dennis J. Paustenbach, Gavin Huntley-Fenner

Abstract

Negative news media reports regarding potential health hazards of implanted medical devices and pharmaceuticals can lead to a 'negative halo effect,' a phenomenon whereby judgments about a product or product type can be unconsciously altered even though the scientific support is tenuous. To determine how a 'negative halo effect' may impact the rates of use and/or explantation of medical products, we analyzed the occurrence of such an effect on three implanted medical devices and one drug: 1) intrauterine contraceptive devices (IUDs); 2) silicone gel-filled breast implants (SGBI); 3) metal-on-metal hip implants (MoM); and 4) the drug Tysabri. Data on IUD use from 1965 to 2008 were gathered from the Department of Health and Human Services Vital and Health Statistics and peer-reviewed publications. Data regarding SGBI implant and explantation rates from 1989 to 2012 were obtained from the Institute of Medicine and the American Society of Plastic Surgeons. MoM implant and explantation data were extracted from the England and Wales National Joint Registry and peer-reviewed publications. Tysabri patient data were reported by Elan Corporation or Biogen Idec Inc. Data trends for all products were compared with historical recall or withdrawal events and discussed in the context of public perceptions following such events. We found that common factors altered public risk perceptions and patterns of continued use. First, a negative halo effect may be driven by continuing patient anxiety despite positive clinical outcomes. Second, negative reports about one product can spill over to affect the use of dissimilar products in the same category. Third, a negative halo effect on an entire category of medical devices can be sustained regardless of the scientific findings pertaining to safety. Fourth, recovery of a product's safety reputation and prevalent use may take decades in the U.S., even while these products may exhibit widespread use and good safety records in other countries. We conclude that the 'negative halo effect' associated with a stigma, rather than an objective risk-benefit assessment of medical products can increase negative health outcomes for patients due to reduced or inappropriate product usage.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 42 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 24%
Student > Master 10 24%
Student > Bachelor 6 14%
Researcher 5 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 8 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 24%
Psychology 5 12%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 5%
Other 8 19%
Unknown 9 21%
Attention Score in Context

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 05 September 2017.
All research outputs
#18,728,392
of 23,213,531 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#13,096
of 15,152 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#244,709
of 322,106 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#297
of 339 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,213,531 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,152 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% 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 322,106 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 339 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.