↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Health care resource use and cost differences by opioid therapy type among chronic noncancer pain patients

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Pain Research, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
Title
Health care resource use and cost differences by opioid therapy type among chronic noncancer pain patients
Published in
Journal of Pain Research, July 2017
DOI 10.2147/jpr.s130913
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pamela B Landsman-Blumberg, Nathaniel Katz, Kavita Gajria, Anna O D’Souza, Sham L Chaudhari, Paul P Yeung, Richard White

Abstract

The study assessed 12-month chronic pain (CP)-related health care utilization and costs among chronic noncancer pain (CNCP) patients who initiated various long-term opioid treatments. Treatments included monotherapy with long-acting opioids (mono-LAOs), mono-therapy with short-acting opioids (mono-SAOs), both LAOs and SAOs (combination), and opioid therapy initiated with SAO or LAO and switched to the other class (switch). Using MarketScan(®) claims databases (2006-2012), we identified CNCP patients with ≥90 days opioid supply after pain diagnosis and continuous enrollment 12 months before pain diagnosis (baseline period) and 12 months after opioid start (post-index period). Outcomes included CP-related health care utilization and costs. Among CNCP patients (n=21,203), the cohort distribution was 74% mono-SAOs, 22% combination, 2% mono-LAOs, and 2% switch. During follow-up, the average daily morphine equivalent dose was highest in mono-LAO patients (96.4 mg) compared with combination patients (89.8 mg), switch patients (64.3 mg), and mono-SAO patients (36.2 mg). After adjusting for baseline differences, the mono-LAO cohort had lower total CP-related costs ($4,933) compared with the mono-SAO ($8,604), switch ($10,470), and combination ($15,190) cohorts (all: P<0.05). Mono-LAO patients had greater CP-related prescription costs but lower medical costs than the other cohorts during the follow-up period, including lower CP-related hospitalizations (1% vs 11%-20%), emergency department visits (4% vs 11%-18%), and diagnostic radiology use (21% vs 54%-61%) (all: P<0.001). Use of pain-related medications and other treatment modalities was also significantly lower in the mono-LAO cohort relative to the other cohorts. CNCP patients using long-term monotherapy with LAOs had the lowest CP-related total health care costs in the 12 months after opioid initiation compared with mono-SAO, switch, or combination patients despite higher opioid daily doses and higher prescription costs. Future research accounting for severity and duration of pain would aid in determining the optimal long-term opioid regimen for CNCP patients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 32%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 18%
Other 3 11%
Student > Postgraduate 3 11%
Student > Master 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 6 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 7%
Social Sciences 2 7%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 7 25%
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 06 April 2021.
All research outputs
#6,397,452
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pain Research
#618
of 1,969 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#92,607
of 327,299 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pain Research
#25
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 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 1,969 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 327,299 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its contemporaries.