↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Patterns of psychotropic medication use in inpatient and outpatient psychiatric settings in Saudi Arabia

Overview of attention for article published in Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
20 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 Mendeley
Title
Patterns of psychotropic medication use in inpatient and outpatient psychiatric settings in Saudi Arabia
Published in
Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, April 2016
DOI 10.2147/ndt.s100405
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fahad D Alosaimi, Abdulhadi Alhabbad, Mohammed F Abalhassan, Ebtihaj O Fallata, Nasser M Alzain, Mohammad Zayed Alassiry, Bander Abdullah Haddad

Abstract

To study the pattern of psychotropic medication use and compare this pattern between inpatient and outpatient psychiatric settings in Saudi Arabia. This cross-sectional observational study was conducted between July 2012 and June 2014 on patients seeking psychiatric advice at major hospitals in five main regions of Saudi Arabia. Male (n=651) and female (n=594) patients who signed the informed consent form and were currently or had been previously using psychotropic medications, irrespective of the patient's type of psychiatric diagnosis and duration of the disease, were included. A total of 1,246 patients were found to be suitable in the inclusion criteria of whom 464 were inpatients while 782 were outpatients. Several studied demographic factors have shown that compared with outpatients, inpatients were more likely to be male (P=0.004), unmarried (P<0.001), have less number of children (1-3; P=0.002), unemployed (P=0.001), have a lower family income (<3,000 SR; P<0.001), live in rural communities (P<0.001), have a lower body mass index (P=0.001), and are smokers (P<0.001); however, there were no differences with regard to age or educational levels. The current frequency of use of psychotropic medications in overall patients was antipsychotics (76.6%), antidepressants (41.4%), mood stabilizers (27.9%), and antianxiety (6.2%). However, compared to outpatients, the current use of medications for inpatients was more frequent (93.8% vs 89.9%, P=0.019) with inpatients more likely to be treated with multiple medications (2.1 vs 1.8 medications). A similar trend was observed in the case of antipsychotics, high potency first-generation antipsychotics, second-generation antipsychotics, mood stabilizers, and antianxiety medicines where inpatients were more frequently treated with these medications for all psychiatric diagnoses when compared with outpatients. On the contrary, in the case of antidepressant treatment, an opposite trend was observed with more number of treated outpatients in comparison to inpatients. Among elderly patients, 75.9% received antipsychotics, mainly second-generation formulations (67.2%), whereas only 41% received antidepressants and 13.8% received mood stabilizers. Based upon the present study data, it is concluded that among all the psychotropic medications, antipsychotics were heavily used and the frequency was found to be significantly high in the case of inpatients compared with outpatients. Such a practice may lead to multiple negative consequences among the Saudi psychiatric patient population. Further, extensive use of sodium valproate in the case of bipolar disorder, and also among females either in childbearing age or during pregnancy is also the cause of concern and warrants logical use. Overall, this study may help in assessing the burden of psychiatric illness within specific patient demographics and might be effectively used to strategically plan health resources allocation, generate new treatment hypothesis, or be used as a source of evidence that could further integrate other observational studies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 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 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 > Ph. D. Student 12 17%
Student > Bachelor 9 13%
Researcher 8 11%
Student > Postgraduate 4 6%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 3 4%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 25 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 23%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 10%
Psychology 6 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 3%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 30 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 December 2016.
All research outputs
#2,296,420
of 25,712,965 outputs
Outputs from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#285
of 3,146 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,381
of 315,593 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#12
of 83 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,712,965 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,146 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 315,593 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 83 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.