↓ Skip to main content

Assessment of utilization pattern of fixed dose drug combinations in primary, secondary and tertiary healthcare centers in Nepal: a cross-sectional study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 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
Assessment of utilization pattern of fixed dose drug combinations in primary, secondary and tertiary healthcare centers in Nepal: a cross-sectional study
Published in
BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40360-017-0176-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Arjun Poudel, Mohamed Izham Mohamed Ibrahim, Pranaya Mishra, Subish Palaian

Abstract

Prescription practices, especially in South Asian countries, have come under investigation for quality. Although there have been no studies in Nepal that have analyzed the prescription pattern of FDCs for different levels of health care centers, several studies from Nepal and other countries in the region have revealed poor medicine use practices, including irrational use of fixed-dose drug combinations (FDCs). This research aimed at assessing the utilization pattern of FDCs among primary (PHC), secondary (SHC) and tertiary health care (THC) centers in Western region of Nepal. A cross-sectional descriptive study was conducted at primary, secondary and tertiary health care centers in Western Nepal. One hundred prescriptions from each health care center were chosen through systematic random sampling. The International Network for Rational Use of Drug (INRUD) indicators were used to assess the rationality of prescribing. Both descriptive and inferential statistics were applied. The alpha level used was 0.05. At the PHC center, 206 medicines were prescribed, of which 20.0% were FDCs. Antimicrobials were the most prescribed FDCs (57.1%). The unit prices of all FDCs were below 100 Nepalese Price Rupees (NPRs). At the SHC center, 309 medicines were prescribed, and 30% were FDCs. Vitamins, minerals and dietary supplements were the most prescribed FDCs (25.8%). The costs of 63.5% of FDCs were below 100 NPRs. At the THC center, 33.5% of 270 medicines were FDCs. As at the SHC center, vitamins, minerals and dietary supplements were the most prescribed FDCs (40.6%). The costs of 50.5% of FDCs were below 100 NPRs. FDCs were used extensively at different health care centers. The number of prescription in private centers, following established guidelines and the essential drug list (EDL), was much lower. The cost associated with the utilization of FDCs was higher in private sectors compared to public health care centers. In certain cases, the use of FDCs was questionable, and this study found a low use of essential medicines. Education to improve prescription practices at different healthcare levels is recommended.

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 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 46 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 20%
Other 8 17%
Student > Postgraduate 6 13%
Researcher 4 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 7%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 9 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 11 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 9%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 11 24%
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 19 July 2018.
All research outputs
#15,489,831
of 23,018,998 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology
#249
of 442 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#206,114
of 329,239 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology
#13
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,018,998 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 442 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 329,239 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.