↓ Skip to main content

Prescription and Underprescription of Clozapine in Dutch Ambulatory Care

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychiatry, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Prescription and Underprescription of Clozapine in Dutch Ambulatory Care
Published in
Frontiers in Psychiatry, June 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00231
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yvonne C. van der Zalm, Fabian Termorshuizen, Peter F. Schulte, Jan P. Bogers, Machteld Marcelis, Iris E. Sommer, Jean Paul Selten

Abstract

Purpose: To our knowledge, no study has examined in a structured way the extent of underprescription of clozapine in ambulatory patients with Non-Affective Psychotic Disorder (NAPD). In the Netherlands, psychiatric care for such patients is provided by Flexible Assertive Community Treatment (FACT) teams and by early intervention teams. In 20 FACT teams and 3 early intervention teams we assessed the proportion of patients who: use clozapine (type 1 patients), previously used this drug (type 2), have an unfulfilled indication for this drug, by type of indication (type 3), or were at least markedly psychotic, but had not yet received two adequate treatments with other antipsychotic drugs (type 4). We expected to find major differences between teams. To rule out that these differences are caused by differences in severity of psychopathology, we also calculated the proportions of patients who use clozapine given an indication at any time (number of type 1 patients divided by the sum of type 1, 2, and 3 patients). Materials and methods: The nurse practitioner of each team identified the patients already on clozapine. Next, using a highly-structured decision tree, the nurse practitioner and psychiatrist assessed whether the remaining patients had an indication for this drug. Indications were treatment-resistant positive symptoms, tardive dyskinesia, aggression and suicidality. The severity of positive symptoms was determined using the Clinical Global Impression-Schizophrenia Scale (CGI-SCH). Results: In the participating FACT-teams 2,286 NAPD patients were assessed. The range among teams in proportions was: type 1: 8.8-34.7% (mean: 23.0%), type 2: 0-8.2% (mean: 3.5%), type 3: 1.7-15.6% (mean: 6.9%), type 4: 1.8-16.3% (mean: 8.6%). The range in proportions of patients using this drug given an indication was 49.0-90.9% (mean: 68.8%). These figures were lower in early intervention teams. Conclusions: The proportion of patients in FACT-teams who have an unfulfilled indication for clozapine is 6.9%. There were considerable differences between teams with respect to this proportion. Almost a third of the outpatients had at any time an indication for clozapine. If one takes type 4 patients into account, this proportion may be higher. Registration number: NTR5135 http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/index.asp.

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.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 15%
Student > Bachelor 5 13%
Researcher 5 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Lecturer 2 5%
Other 7 18%
Unknown 11 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 31%
Psychology 6 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 14 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 11 June 2018.
All research outputs
#14,984,239
of 23,049,027 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychiatry
#5,134
of 10,173 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#197,624
of 328,179 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychiatry
#129
of 171 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,049,027 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,173 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 328,179 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 171 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.