↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Primary care physician attitudes and perceptions of the impact of FDA-proposed REMS policy on prescription of extended-release and long-acting opioids

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Pain Research, October 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
Title
Primary care physician attitudes and perceptions of the impact of FDA-proposed REMS policy on prescription of extended-release and long-acting opioids
Published in
Journal of Pain Research, October 2012
DOI 10.2147/jpr.s35798
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gregory D Salinas, Caroline O Robinson, Maziar Abdolrasulnia

Abstract

With increasing numbers of patients experiencing chronic pain, opioid therapy is becoming more common, leading to increases in concern about issues of abuse, diversion, and misuse. Further, the US Food and Drug Administration recently released a statement notifying sponsors and manufacturers of extended-release and long-acting opioids of the need to develop Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS) programs in order to ensure that the benefits of this therapy choice outweigh the potential risks. There is little research on physician opinions concerning opioid-prescribing and education policies. To assess attitudes surrounding new opioid policies, a survey was designed and distributed to primary care physicians in October 2011. Data collected from 201 primary care physicians show that most are not familiar with the REMS requirements proposed by the Food and Drug Administration for extended-release and long-acting opioids; there is no consensus among primary care physicians on the impact of prescribing requirements on patient education and care; and increasing requirements for extended-release and long-acting opioid education may decrease opioid prescribing. Physician attitudes toward increased regulatory oversight of opioid therapy prescriptions should be taken into consideration by groups developing these interventions to ensure that they do not cause undue burden on already busy primary care physicians.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 1 3%
Unknown 32 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 15%
Librarian 3 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Other 2 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 6%
Other 6 18%
Unknown 12 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 27%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 9%
Social Sciences 3 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 12 36%
Attention Score in Context

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 29 October 2012.
All research outputs
#15,517,312
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pain Research
#1,105
of 1,979 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#113,193
of 190,989 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pain Research
#13
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,979 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.2. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 190,989 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.