ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2000
Do GPs working in practice with high or low prescribing costs have different views on prescribing cost issues?
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Explanatory model of prescribing behavior in prescription of statins in family practice.Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2010Article
- Family physician attitudes about prescribing using a drug formulary.BMC family practice · 2009Article
- Prescribing behaviour after the introduction of decentralized drug budgets: is there an association with employer and type of care facility?Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2009Article
- Attitudes and behaviour of general practitioners and their prescribing costs: a national cross sectional survey.Quality & safety in health care · 2003Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn a previous study we found that a minority of general practitioners (GPs) had different views to health authority advisers on a number of prescribing cost issues. However, there were few differences between subgroups of GPs. We hypothesised that subgroups that might show differences were GPs from practices with either high or low prescribing costs.
aimTo assess differences in views on prescribing cost issues between GPs working in practices with either high or low prescribing costs.
methodUsing PACTLINE data, prescribing costs were obtained for general practices within the Trent Region for the financial year 1996 to 1997. A questionnaire was sent anonymously to 340 GPs working in those practices with high prescribing costs, and to 322 GPs working in practices with the lowest prescribing costs.
resultsA total of 216 (63.5%) GPs from high-cost practices and 194 (60.2%) from low-cost practices responded. There were statistically significant differences between the two groups on seven out of 22 statements. However, when the confounding effect of fundholding was taken into account, significant differences were found for just three statements and each of these related to substitution with comparable but cheaper drugs.
conclusionsGPs working in practices with either high or low prescribing costs had different views on a number of statements concerning substitution with comparable but cheaper drugs. When encouraging GPs to control their prescribing costs, a different approach may be required for doctors in some high-cost practices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
10750205PMC1313625What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.