↓ Skip to main content

Effects of prescription restrictive interventions on antibiotic procurement in primary care settings: a controlled interrupted time series study in China

Overview of attention for article published in Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

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
Effects of prescription restrictive interventions on antibiotic procurement in primary care settings: a controlled interrupted time series study in China
Published in
Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12962-018-0086-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yuqing Tang, Chaojie Liu, Zinan Zhang, Xinping Zhang

Abstract

The overuse of antibiotics has been identified as a major challenge in regard to the rational prescription of medicines in low and middle income countries. Extensive studies on the effectiveness of persuasive interventions, such as guidelines have been undertaken. There is a dearth of research pertaining to the effects of restrictive interventions. This study aimed to evaluate the impacts of prescription restrictions in relation to types and administration routes of antibiotics on antibiotic procurement in primary care settings in China. Data were drawn from the monthly procurement records of medicines for primary care institutions in Hubei province over a 31-month period from May 2011 to November 2013. We analyzed the monthly procurement volume and costs of antibiotics. Interrupted time series analyses with a difference-in-difference approach were performed to evaluate the effect of the restrictive intervention (started in August 2012) on antibiotic procurement in comparison with those for cardiovascular conditions. Sensitivity tests were performed by replacing outliers using a simple linear interpolation technique. Over the entire study period, antibiotics accounted for 33.65% of the total costs of medicines procured for primary care institutions: mostly non-restricted antibiotics (86.03%) and antibiotics administered through parenteral routes (79.59%). On average, 17.14 million defined daily doses (DDDs) of antibiotics were procured per month, with the majority (93.09%) for non-restricted antibiotics and over half (52.38%) for parenteral administered antibiotics. The restrictive intervention was associated with a decline in the secular trend of costs for non-restricted oral antibiotics (- 0.36 million Yuan per month, p = 0.029), and for parenteral administered restricted antibiotics (- 0.28 million Yuan per month, p = 0.019), as well as a decline in the secular trend of procurement volume for parenteral administered non-restricted antibiotics (- 0.038 million DDDs per month, p = 0.05). Restrictive interventions are effective in reducing the procurement of antibiotics. However, the effect size is relatively small and antibiotic consumptions remain high, especially parenteral administered antibiotics.

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 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%
Researcher 5 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 14%
Other 2 6%
Lecturer 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 11 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 20%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 3%
Other 8 23%
Unknown 13 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 23 January 2018.
All research outputs
#4,098,026
of 23,321,213 outputs
Outputs from Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
#117
of 434 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#90,072
of 443,716 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
#5
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,321,213 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 434 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 443,716 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.