↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Consumer opinions on adverse events associated with medicines and vaccines

Overview of attention for article published in Patient preference and adherence, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 Mendeley
Title
Consumer opinions on adverse events associated with medicines and vaccines
Published in
Patient preference and adherence, July 2018
DOI 10.2147/ppa.s167396
Pubmed ID
Authors

Parisa Aslani, Kim Hamrosi, Vivien Tong, Timothy F Chen, Jane Cook, Romano Fois, Theresa McGarry, Carter Moore, Rodney Peters, Sarah Spagnardi, Karen Whitelock

Abstract

Despite the availability of an Australian consumer adverse event (AE) reporting system for over 50 years, reporting rates remain low. A comprehensive understanding of consumer perceptions and experiences regarding AEs is needed to further ascertain factors impacting their engagement in AE reporting. The aim of this study was to explore consumer opinions about AEs potentially associated with medicines and vaccines, and their experiences and understanding of managing and reporting AEs. Six focus groups were conducted across metropolitan Sydney with a total of 48 adult participants. A semi-structured focus group topic guide was developed to explore consumers' understanding, experiences, and actions taken in relation to AEs; and perspectives on managing treatment benefits and harms. Discussions were audio-recorded with participant permission and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were thematically analyzed. Consumers acknowledged the potential for side effects (SEs), however inaccurately estimated SE risk in response to verbal descriptors such as "common." Consumer appraisal of treatment benefits and harms was influenced by factors such as medical condition(s), previous experiences, and beliefs. Although many had experienced SEs, consumers only reported them if considered severe or troublesome. Minimal awareness of consumer AE reporting systems was evident. Doctors were the primary avenue for reporting; consumers preferred doctors to act as the intermediary in reporting AEs to an independent body. Consumers' lack of awareness of AE reporting systems was evident. With the complexities inherent in benefit/harm risk appraisal, information seeking, and AE reporting preferences, better consumer understanding of AEs and the systems available for reporting is needed.

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 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 20 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 3 15%
Student > Master 3 15%
Student > Bachelor 3 15%
Librarian 2 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 10%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 5 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 15%
Social Sciences 3 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 6 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 14 August 2018.
All research outputs
#14,519,165
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#717
of 1,733 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#167,775
of 342,091 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#20
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,733 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 342,091 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 50% of its contemporaries.
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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its contemporaries.