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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Differences in antibiotic use between patients with and without a regular doctor in Hong Kong
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40360-015-0041-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tai Pong Lam, Yuk Tsan Wun, Kwok Fai Lam, Kai Sing Sun |
| Abstract |
Literature shows that continuity of care from a primary care physician is associated with better patient satisfaction and preventive care. This may also have an effect on patients' use of antibiotics. This study investigated the differences in antibiotic use between patients with and without a regular doctor in a pluralistic health care system. A cross-sectional telephone questionnaire survey using randomly selected household phone numbers was conducted in Hong Kong. Several key areas about antibiotic use were compared between the respondents with a regular doctor and those without. The response rate was 68.3 %. Of the 2,471 respondents, 1,450 (58.7 %) had a regular doctor, 942 (38.1 %) without, and 79 (3.2 %) did not give a clear answer. The respondents with a regular doctor were more likely to report that they always finished the full course of antibiotics (74.2 % vs 62.4 %), as well as using antibiotics for their last upper respiratory tract infections (17.4 % vs 10.1 %). The association with antibiotic use remained significant in the multivariable logistic regression analysis after adjusting for other confounding factors (P < 0.001, OR = 1.76, 95 % CI:(1.27, 2.48)). While patients with a regular doctor, compared to those without, were more likely to report finishing the full course of antibiotics, they also had nearly twice the chance of reporting antibiotic use for upper respiratory tract infections. This challenges the common belief of the benefits in having a regular doctor. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 45 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 10 | 22% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 7 | 16% |
| Unknown | 10 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 24% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 16% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 9% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 11% |
| Unknown | 12 | 27% |
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 16 December 2015.
All research outputs
#22,756,649
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology
#405
of 483 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#338,601
of 396,217 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology
#10
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 483 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 396,217 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.