↓ Skip to main content

Usage and cost of first-line drugs for patients referred to inpatient anthroposophic integrative care or inpatient conventional care for stress-related mental disorders—a register based study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 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
Usage and cost of first-line drugs for patients referred to inpatient anthroposophic integrative care or inpatient conventional care for stress-related mental disorders—a register based study
Published in
BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12906-015-0865-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tobias Sundberg, Laith Hussain-Alkhateeb, Torkel Falkenberg

Abstract

Stress-related mental disorders (SRMD) are common and costly. Rehabilitation strategies, including pharmacotherapy, may be complicated to evaluate. Previous research has indicated increased quality of life and self-rated health for SRMD patients that receive a combination of conventional and complementary therapies, i.e. integrative care. The aim of this retrospective registry study was to explore and contrast the prescription of first-line drugs for SRMD patients referred to hospital inpatient anthroposophic integrative care (AIC) or inpatient conventional care (CC). SRMD patients that had received AIC or CC were identified through high-quality inpatient registry data from Stockholm County Council and matched by available background characteristics including diagnosis (ICD-10: F43), age, gender and socio-economics. General disease load was estimated by analysis of ICD-10 chapter data. The Swedish Prescribed Drug Register was then used to investigate purchased defined daily doses (DDD) and cost of drugs from 90-days before/after, and 180-days before/after, the first visits (index) to AIC and CC respectively. First-line drug categories were Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical classification codes N05A (antipsychotics), N05B (anxiolytics), N05C (hypnotics and sedatives) and N06A (antidepressants). There were no statistically significant differences between the AIC (n = 161) and the CC (n = 1571) cohorts in terms of background characteristics and the overall disease loads were similar between the groups the preceding year. At baseline, the prescription of first-line anxiolytics and antidepressants were not statistically different between groups whereas the prescription of antipsychotics and hypnotics/sedatives were lower for the AIC cohort. The overall change in drug prescriptions and costs during the investigated periods, both for the 90-days before/after and for the 180-days before/after the index visit, showed a general decrease within the AIC cohort with significantly less prescribed anxiolytics and hypnotics/sedatives. During the same time periods there was a general increase in prescriptions and costs of first-line drugs within the CC cohort. The overall disease loads were generally stable within both cohorts over time, except that the CC cohort had increased visits registered with an ICD-10 F-chapter diagnosis the year after index. The results suggests that there may be different drug utilization patterns for SRMD patients referred to AIC or CC. Different management strategies between AIC and CC providers, different SRMD disease severities and different preferences of patients referred to AIC and CC are hypothetical differentiating factors that may influence drug outcomes over time. Additional studies including prospective and randomized clinical trials are warranted to determine if there is a causal link between inpatient AIC and reduced drug utilization.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 49 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 14%
Researcher 7 14%
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Other 8 16%
Unknown 14 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 18%
Psychology 7 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 8%
Social Sciences 4 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 6%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 16 33%

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 16 October 2015.
All research outputs
#14,036,126
of 22,489,892 outputs
Outputs from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#1,594
of 3,303 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#138,220
of 270,592 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,489,892 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,303 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 270,592 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them