↓ Skip to main content

Urban-rural inequality regarding drug prescriptions in primary care facilities – a pre-post comparison of the National Essential Medicines Scheme of China

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal for Equity in Health, July 2015
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 (76th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 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
Urban-rural inequality regarding drug prescriptions in primary care facilities – a pre-post comparison of the National Essential Medicines Scheme of China
Published in
International Journal for Equity in Health, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12939-015-0186-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Qiang Yao, Chaojie Liu, J. Adamm Ferrier, Zhiyong Liu, Ju Sun

Abstract

To assess the impact of the National Essential Medicines Scheme (NEMS) with respect to urban-rural inequalities regarding drug prescriptions in primary care facilities. A stratified two-stage random sampling strategy was used to sample 23,040 prescriptions from 192 primary care facilities from 2009 to 2010. Difference-in-Difference (DID) analyses were performed to test the association between NEMS and urban-rural gaps in prescription patterns. Between-Group Variance and Theil Index were calculated to measure urban-rural absolute and relative disparities in drug prescriptions. The use of the Essential Medicines List (EML) achieved a compliance rate of up to 90 % in both urban and rural facilities. An overall reduction of average prescription cost improved economic access to drugs for patients in both areas. However, we observed an increased urban-rural disparity in average expenditure per prescription. The rate of antibiotics and glucocorticoids prescription remained high, despite a reduced disparity between urban and rural facilities. The average incidence of antibiotic prescription increased slightly in urban facilities (62 to 63 %) and reduced in rural facilities (67 % to 66 %). The urban-rural disparity in the use of parenteral administration (injections and infusions) increased, albeit at a high level in both areas (44 %-52 %). NEMS interventions are effective in reducing the overall average prescription costs. Despite the increased use of the EML, indicator performances with respect to rational drug prescribing and use remain poor and exceed the WHO/INRUD recommended cutoff values and worldwide benchmarks. There is an increased gap between urban and rural areas in the use of parenteral administration and expenditure per prescription.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 68 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 22%
Researcher 14 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 10%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Librarian 3 4%
Other 11 16%
Unknown 13 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 29%
Social Sciences 8 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Other 13 19%
Unknown 15 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 03 February 2022.
All research outputs
#5,435,116
of 22,876,619 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#871
of 1,910 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,961
of 263,213 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#7
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,876,619 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,910 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 263,213 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 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 53% of its contemporaries.