↓ Skip to main content

Discrete-choice modelling of patient preferences for modes of drug administration

Overview of attention for article published in Health Economics Review, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 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
Discrete-choice modelling of patient preferences for modes of drug administration
Published in
Health Economics Review, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13561-017-0162-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ebenezer Kwabena Tetteh, Steve Morris, Nigel Titcheneker-Hooker

Abstract

The administration of (biologically-derived) drugs for various disease conditions involves consumption of resources that constitutes a direct monetary cost to healthcare payers and providers. An often ignored cost relates to a mismatch between patients' preferences and the mode of drug administration. The "intangible" benefits of giving patients what they want in terms of the mode of drug delivery is seldom considered. This study aims to evaluate, in monetary terms, end-user preferences for the non-monetary attributes of different modes of drug administration using a discrete-choice experiment. It provides empirical support to the notion that there are significant benefits from developing patient-friendly approaches to drug delivery. The gross benefits per patient per unit administration is in the same order of magnitude as the savings in resource costs of administering drugs. The study argues that, as long as the underlying manufacturing science is capable, a patient-centred approach to producing drug delivery systems should be encouraged and pursued.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 4 16%
Researcher 4 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 16%
Student > Postgraduate 2 8%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 8 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 8%
Unspecified 1 4%
Mathematics 1 4%
Linguistics 1 4%
Other 7 28%
Unknown 10 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 15 August 2017.
All research outputs
#14,076,260
of 22,994,508 outputs
Outputs from Health Economics Review
#197
of 435 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#170,555
of 317,332 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Economics Review
#5
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,994,508 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 435 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 317,332 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.