Measuring the impact of pharmacoepidemiologic research using altmetrics: A case study of a CNODES drug-safety article.

PURPOSE: To provide an overview of altmetrics, including their potential benefits and limitations, how they may be obtained, and their role in assessing pharmacoepidemiologic research impact. METHODS: Our review was informed by compiling relevant literature identified through searching multiple health research databases (PubMed, Embase, and CIHNAHL) and grey literature sources (websites, blogs, and reports). We demonstrate how pharmacoepidemiologists, in particular, may use altmetrics to understand scholarly impact and knowledge translation by providing a case study of a drug-safety study conducted by the Canadian Network of Observational Drug Effect Studies. RESULTS: A common approach to measuring research impact is the use of citation-based metrics, such as an article's citation count or a journal's impact factor. "Alternative" metrics, or altmetrics, are increasingly supported as a complementary measure of research uptake in the age of social media. Altmetrics are nontraditional indicators that capture a diverse set of traceable, online research-related artifacts including peer-reviewed publications and other research outputs (software, datasets, blogs, videos, posters, policy documents, presentations, social media posts, wiki entries, etc). CONCLUSION: Compared with traditional citation-based metrics, altmetrics take a more holistic view of research impact, attempting to capture the activity and engagement of both scholarly and nonscholarly communities. Despite the limited theoretical underpinnings, possible commercial influence, potential for gaming and manipulation, and numerous data quality-related issues, altmetrics are promising as a supplement to more traditional citation-based metrics because they can ingest and process a larger set of data points related to the flow and reach of scholarly communication from an expanded pool of stakeholders. Unlike citation-based metrics, altmetrics are not inherently rooted in the research publication process, which includes peer review; it is unclear to what extent they should be used for research evaluation.

Impact of drug cost sharing on service use and adverse clinical outcomes in elderly receiving antidepressants.

BACKGROUND: Depression imposes enormous burdens on the elderly. Despite this, rates of initiation of and adherence to recommended pharmacotherapy are frequently low in this population. Although initiatives such as the Medicare Modernization Act (MMA) have improved seniors' access to antidepressants, there are concerns that the patient cost-sharing incorporated in the MMA may have unintended consequences if it reduces essential drug use. Age-related pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic changes could make seniors particularly vulnerable to antidepressant regimens used inappropriately to save costs, increasing their risks of morbidity, hospitalizations, and nursing home placements. Two sequential large-scale "natural experiments'' in British Columbia provide a unique opportunity to evaluate the effect of cost sharing on outcomes and mental health service use among seniors. In January 2002 the province introduced a CAD 25 copay (CAD10 for low-income seniors). In May 2003 this copay policy was replaced by a second policy consisting of an income-based deductible, 25% coinsurance once the deductible was met, and full coverage once an out-of-pocket ceiling was met. The transition between the two policies is analogous to what many U.S. seniors experience when they transition from private insurance requiring copays to Medicare Part D requiring deductibles and coinsurance. AIMS: To evaluate whether declines in antidepressant initiation after the introduction of two drug cost-sharing policies in British Columbia were associated with increased use of physician services, hospitalizations, and nursing home admissions among all British Columbia residents aged 65+. METHODS: Records of physician service use, inpatient hospitalizations, and residential care admissions were obtained from administrative databases. Population-level patterns over time were plotted, and effects of implementing the cost-sharing policies examined in segmented linear regression models. RESULTS: Neither policy affected the rates of visits to physicians or psychiatrists for depression, hospitalizations with a depression diagnosis, or long-term care admissions. DISCUSSION: The cost-sharing policies studied may have contained non-essential antidepressant use without substantially increasing mental health service utilization. However, it is possible that the policies had effects that we were unable to detect, such as increasing rates of visits to social workers or psychologists or forcing patients to reduce other spending. Further, the sequential implementation of the policy changes, makes it difficult to estimate the effect of a direct change from full coverage to a coinsurance/income-based deductible policy. IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH POLICIES: It may be possible to design policies to contain non-essential antidepressant use without substantially increasing other service utilization or adverse events. However, because undertreatment remains a serious problem among depressed elderly, well-designed prescription drug policies should be coupled with interventions to address under-treatment.

Effects of prescription coinsurance and income-based deductibles on net health plan spending for older users of inhaled medications.

BACKGROUND: Health plans that increase prescription cost-sharing for their patients may increase overall plan costs. We analyzed the impact on health plan spending of a switch in public drug insurance from full coverage to a prescription copayment (copay), and then to income-based deductibles plus coinsurance (IBD). METHODS: We studied British Columbia residents 65 years of age or older who were dispensed inhaled steroids, beta2 agonists or anticholinergics on or after January 1996. Multivariable linear regression was used to estimate health plan costs for the population using inhalers by the Ministry of Health (MOH) during the copay and IBD policies. We estimated costs for excess physician visits and emergency hospitalizations based on data from a previously published cohort study and cost data from the MOH. We estimated the net change in MOH spending as the sum of changes in spending for inhalers, physician visits, hospitalizations, and policy administration costs. RESULTS: Net health plan spending increased by C$1.98 million per year during the copay policy [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.10-4.34], and C$5.76 million per year during the first 10 months of the IBD policy (95% CI: 1.75-10.58). Out-of-pocket spending by older patients increased 30% during the copay policy (95% CI: 24-36) and 59% during the IBD policy (95% CI: 56-63). CONCLUSIONS: British Columbia's experience indicates that cost containment focused on cost-shifting to patients may increase net expenditures for the treatment of some diseases. Health plans should consult experts to anticipate the potential cross-program impacts of policy changes.

Net health plan savings from reference pricing for angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors in elderly British Columbia residents.

BACKGROUND: Reference drug pricing (RP) is a cost-sharing strategy commonly used to control drug expenditures. Under RP, a benefit plan fully reimburses medications that are equally or less expensive than the reference price, and requires patients to pay the extra cost of therapeutically equivalent but higher priced drugs. Critics argued that drug plan savings are offset by administrative costs and increased spending on other health services. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated net healthcare savings in beneficiaries >or=65 years from the perspective of the British Columbia provincial health insurance system after it applied RP to angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors in 1997. METHODS: We estimated savings in new users of antihypertensives after the start of RP plus associated administrative costs and savings from reductions in retail drug prices. Findings were integrated with earlier results on the consequences of RP on expenditures for drugs, physicians, and hospitalizations among all seniors who used ACE inhibitors before the introduction of RP. RESULTS: During the first year after the implementation of RP, savings for continuous users were CAN dollars 6.0 million. Savings for new users were dollars 0.2 million. Approximately five sixths thereof were achieved by utilization changes and one sixth by cost shifting to patients. There were no savings through drug price changes. Administering RP cost dollars 0.42 million. Overall net savings were estimated to be dollars 5.8 million during the first year after the start of RP. The magnitude of these savings is equal to 6% of all cardiovascular drug expenditures in seniors. After 10 years, approximately 50% of savings will be achieved by new users. CONCLUSION: We observed substantial net savings from RP for ACE inhibitors for the provincial health insurance system in British Columbia, although there were generous exemptions from the policy. In other jurisdictions, savings could be higher if drug prices decline after the start of reference pricing.