↓ Skip to main content

Mortality in the Melbourne injecting drug user cohort study (MIX)

Overview of attention for article published in Harm Reduction Journal, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
20 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
95 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
Mortality in the Melbourne injecting drug user cohort study (MIX)
Published in
Harm Reduction Journal, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12954-015-0089-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dhanya Nambiar, Paul A. Agius, Mark Stoové, Matthew Hickman, Paul Dietze

Abstract

There are few studies of mortality amongst people who inject drugs (PWID) in Australia. In this study, we estimate mortality in a cohort of PWID in Melbourne and examine predictors of mortality including health service use, demographic characteristics, drug use and personal wellbeing. We linked identifiers from the Melbourne injecting drug use cohort study (MIX; n = 655) to the National Death Index from 2008 to 2012 to estimate standardised mortality ratios (SMRs). Cox regression was used to examine the bivariate relationship between exposures determined at baseline and subsequent mortality. There were 24 (3.6 %) deaths over the study period. The mortality rate in the cohort was 1.0 per 100 PY (95 % CI 0.71-1.57), with an SMR of 17.3 (95 % CI 11.6-25.8). Baseline reports of four or more lifetime incarcerations (HR 3.65, 95 % CI 1.16-11.52), past month ambulance attendance (HR 4.43, 95 % CI 1.76-11.17), past month emergency department presentation (HR 3.44, 95 % CI 1.47-8.03) and past 6-month self-reported heroin overdose (HR 3.14, 95 % CI 1.24-7.96) were associated with increased mortality risk. Contact with emergency services, particularly for drug overdose, remains a lost opportunity to provide referrals for harm reduction and naloxone training programmes to PWID at greater risk of mortality.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 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 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 95 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 42 44%
Student > Master 12 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 7%
Researcher 6 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 6%
Other 7 7%
Unknown 15 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 42 44%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 7%
Social Sciences 5 5%
Psychology 5 5%
Other 6 6%
Unknown 18 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 October 2016.
All research outputs
#2,613,939
of 23,321,213 outputs
Outputs from Harm Reduction Journal
#367
of 950 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,030
of 391,564 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Harm Reduction Journal
#5
of 7 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 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 950 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 391,564 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.