↓ Skip to main content

Reducing hypnotic use in insomnia management among Australian veterans: results from repeated national interventions

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, August 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 (78th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
61 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
Reducing hypnotic use in insomnia management among Australian veterans: results from repeated national interventions
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12913-018-3443-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lisa M. Kalisch Ellett, Renly Lim, Nicole L. Pratt, Mhairi Kerr, Emmae N. Ramsay, Tammy V. LeBlanc, John D. Barratt, Elizabeth E. Roughead

Abstract

The Australian Government Department of Veterans' Affairs (DVA) Veterans' Medicines Advice and Therapeutics Education Services (Veterans' MATES) programme conducted two intervention (March 2009, follow-up intervention June 2012) both of which aimed to reduce hypnotic use among Australian veterans. We evaluated the effectiveness of the interventions, and estimated the associated health consequences. Both interventions targeted veterans who had been dispensed hypnotics prior to the intervention. Patient-specific prescriber feedback containing patient details and the volume of hypnotics dispensed, along with tailored educational information, was mailed to general practitioners. Veterans, pharmacists and directors of care in residential aged care facilities were mailed tailored educational information. Interrupted time-series and segmented regression modelling were used to determine the effect of the two interventions on the rate of hypnotics dispensing. The cumulative patient-months of hypnotic treatment avoided as a result of the interventions was calculated. We estimated improvements in health consequences of as a result of hypnotic treatment avoided based on the results of cohort studies in the same population identifying the association between hypnotic and sedative use on the outcomes of falls, and confusion. After the first Veterans' MATES intervention in March 2009, hypnotic use declined by 0.2% each month, when compared to the baseline level (p = 0.006). The intervention effect was attenuated after one year, and use of hypnotics was found to increase by 0.2% per month after March 2010. Following the second intervention in June 2012, there was a further significant decline in use of 0.18% each month over the 12 months of follow up (p = 0.049). The cumulative effect of both interventions resulted in 20,850 fewer patient-months of treatment with hypnotics. This cumulative reduction in hypnotic use was estimated to lead to a minimum of 1 fewer hospital admissions for acute confusion and 7 fewer hospital admissions due to falls. The Veterans' MATES insomnia interventions which involved multiple stakeholders were effective in reducing hypnotic use among older Australians. Repetition of key messages led to sustained practice change.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 61 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 11%
Researcher 7 11%
Student > Master 7 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 8%
Unspecified 4 7%
Other 9 15%
Unknown 22 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 9 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 10%
Unspecified 4 7%
Psychology 3 5%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 29 48%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 August 2018.
All research outputs
#4,069,775
of 25,354,251 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#1,799
of 8,617 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,245
of 337,830 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#72
of 197 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,354,251 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,617 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 337,830 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 197 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 63% of its contemporaries.