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 |
Controlled Substance Agreements for Opioids in a Primary Care Practice
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40545-017-0119-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lindsey M. Philpot, Priya Ramar, Muhamad Y. Elrashidi, Raphael Mwangi, Frederick North, Jon O. Ebbert |
| Abstract |
Opioids are widely prescribed for chronic non cancer pain (CNCP). Controlled substance agreements (CSAs) are intended to increase adherence and mitigate risk with opioid prescribing. We evaluated the demographic characteristics of and opioid dosing for patients with CNCP enrolled in CSAs in a primary care practice. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 1066 patients enrolled in CSAs between May 9, 2013 and August 15, 2016 for CNCP in a Midwest primary care practice. Patients were prescribed an average of 40.8 (SD ± 57.0) morphine milligram equivalents per day (MME/day), and 21.5% of patients were receiving ≥50 MME/day and 9.7% were receiving ≥90 MME/day. Patients who were younger in age (≥ 65 vs. < 65 years, P < 0.0001), male gender (P = 0.0001), and used tobacco (P = 0.0002) received significantly higher MME/day. Patients with more co-morbidities (Charlson Comorbidity Index, CCI) received higher MME/day (CCI > 3 vs. CCI ≤ 3, P = 0.03), and reported higher average pain (CCI > 3 mean 5.8 [SD ± 2.1] vs. CCI ≤ 3 mean 5.3 [SD ± 2.0], P = 0.0011). Patients on an identified tapering plan (6.9%) had higher MME/day than patients not on a tapering plan (P = 0.0002). CSAs present an opportunity to engage patients taking higher doses of opioids in discussions about opioid safety, appropriate dosing and tapering. CSAs could be leveraged to develop a population health management approach to the care of patients with CNCP. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 50% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 39 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 21% |
| Other | 6 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 13% |
| Researcher | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Unknown | 10 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 33% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 21% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 3% |
| Psychology | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 11 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 06 December 2021.
All research outputs
#13,054,539
of 23,001,641 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice
#211
of 413 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#149,689
of 315,999 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice
#3
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,001,641 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 413 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 315,999 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 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 72% of its contemporaries.