↓ Skip to main content

An inevitable wave of prescription drug monitoring programs in the context of prescription opioids: pros, cons and tensions

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology, August 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#8 of 482)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
3 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
13 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
81 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
122 Mendeley
Title
An inevitable wave of prescription drug monitoring programs in the context of prescription opioids: pros, cons and tensions
Published in
BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology, August 2014
DOI 10.1186/2050-6511-15-46
Pubmed ID
Authors

M Mofizul Islam, Ian S McRae

Abstract

In an effort to control non-medical use and/or medical abuse of prescription drugs, particularly prescription opioids, electronic prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMP) have been introduced in North-American countries, Australia and some parts of Europe. Paradoxically, there are simultaneous pressures to increase opioid prescribing for the benefit of individual patients and to reduce it for the sake of public health, and this pressure warrants a delicate balance of appropriate therapeutic uses of these drugs with the risk of developing dependence. This article discusses pros and cons of PDMP in reducing diversion of prescription opioids, without hampering access to those medications for those with genuine needs, and highlights tensions around PDMP implementation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 122 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Norway 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 120 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 20%
Researcher 15 12%
Student > Bachelor 15 12%
Other 11 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 8%
Other 22 18%
Unknown 25 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 26%
Social Sciences 12 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 6 5%
Other 26 21%
Unknown 28 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 43. 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 07 August 2023.
All research outputs
#959,356
of 25,271,884 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology
#8
of 482 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,395
of 216,245 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology
#2
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,271,884 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 482 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 216,245 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.