↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

An upper and lower bound of the Medication Possession Ratio

Overview of attention for article published in Patient preference and adherence, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
70 Mendeley
Title
An upper and lower bound of the Medication Possession Ratio
Published in
Patient preference and adherence, August 2017
DOI 10.2147/ppa.s136890
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christian M Sperber, Suren R Samarasinghe, Grace P Lomax

Abstract

The Medication Possession Ratio (MPR) is a ubiquitous and central measurement for adherence in the health care industry. However, attempts to standardize its calculation have failed, possibly due to the opacity of a single, static MPR, incapability of directly lending itself to a variety of studies, and challenges of comparing the value across studies. This work shows that the MPR strictly depends on the length of the time interval over which it is measured as well as on the dominant dispense quantity for short time intervals. Furthermore, removing a proportion of the patient cohort based on the number of acquisitions may also have a severe impact on the MPR. Therefore, it is suggested that the MPR is represented as a trend over a range of time intervals. To this end, an upper and lower bound of the MPR trend is developed with an upper bound acknowledging patients who change their treatment and the lower bound acknowledging patients who discontinue their treatment. Introducing a representation of the MPR value as a trend rather than a static number by developing a quantitative description of an upper and lower bound of the MPR trend, while shedding light on the impacts on prefiltering the patient cohort. Anonymized patient-level data was utilized as an example for a suggested calculation of an upper and lower bound of the MPR. Representation of the MPR for a predefined time interval precludes a reliable MPR assessment. A quantitative approach is suggested to generate an upper and lower trend of the MPR while emphasizing the impact on removing patients with a limited number of acquisitions. An upper and lower trend makes the MPR more transparent and allows a better comparison across different studies. Removing patients with a limited number of acquisitions should be avoided.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 70 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 9%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Researcher 5 7%
Other 4 6%
Other 11 16%
Unknown 26 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 27%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 11 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Psychology 2 3%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 26 37%
Attention Score in Context

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 21 September 2017.
All research outputs
#19,924,915
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#1,288
of 1,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#237,990
of 327,503 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#38
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,757 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 327,503 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.