↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Does co-payment for inhaler devices affect therapy adherence and disease outcomes? A historical, matched cohort study

Overview of attention for article published in Pragmatic and Observational Research, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
Title
Does co-payment for inhaler devices affect therapy adherence and disease outcomes? A historical, matched cohort study
Published in
Pragmatic and Observational Research, April 2017
DOI 10.2147/por.s132658
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jaco Voorham, Bernard Vrijens, Job FM van Boven, Dermot Ryan, Marc Miravitlles, Lisa M Law, David B Price

Abstract

Adherence to asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) treatment has been shown to depend on patient-level factors, such as disease severity, and medication-level factors, such as complexity. However, little is known about the impact of prescription charges - a factor at the health care system level. This study used real-life data to investigate whether co-payment affects adherence (implementation and persistence) and disease outcomes in patients with asthma or COPD. A matched, historical cohort study was carried out using two UK primary care databases. The exposure was co-payment for prescriptions, which is required for most patients in England but not in Scotland. Two comparison cohorts were formed: one comprising patients registered at general practices in England and the other comprising patients registered in Scotland. Patients aged 20-59 years with asthma, or 40-59 years with COPD, who were initiated on fluticasone propionate/salmeterol xinafoate, were included, matched to patients in the opposite cohort, and followed up for 1 year following fluticasone propionate/salmeterol xinafoate initiation. The primary outcome was good adherence, defined as medication possession ratio ≥80%, and was analyzed using conditional logistic regression. Secondary outcomes included exacerbation rate. There were 1,640 patients in the payment cohort, ie, England (1,378 patients with asthma and 262 patients with COPD) and 619 patients in the no-payment cohort, ie, Scotland (512 patients with asthma and 107 patients with COPD). The proportion of patients with good adherence was 34.3% and 34.9% in the payment and no-payment cohorts, respectively, across both disease groups. In a multivariable model, no difference in odds of good adherence was found between the cohorts (odds ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.85-1.27). There was also no difference in exacerbation rate. There was no difference in adherence between matched patients registered in England and Scotland, suggesting that prescription charges do not have an impact on adherence to treatment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 21%
Student > Master 5 17%
Lecturer 3 10%
Researcher 3 10%
Other 2 7%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 6 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 28%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 10%
Psychology 2 7%
Computer Science 2 7%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 7 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 26 July 2017.
All research outputs
#6,454,020
of 25,748,735 outputs
Outputs from Pragmatic and Observational Research
#1
of 1 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#94,587
of 324,933 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pragmatic and Observational Research
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,748,735 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one scored the same or higher as 0 of them.
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 324,933 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them