Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10756613›Full record

Trial reportThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners1999

Controlled trial of pharmacist intervention in general practice: the effect on prescribing costs.

S Rodgers, A J Avery, D Meechan, S Briant, M Geraghty, K Doran, D K Whynes

Abstract readClinical TrialControlled Clinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 1999. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Treatment reviews of older people on polypharmacy in primary care: cluster controlled trial comparing two approaches.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2007
    Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Physician centric healthcare: is it time for a paradigm shift?Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2017
    Article
  10. Professional training and roles of community pharmacists in malaysia: views from general medical practitioners.Malaysian family physician : the official journal of the Academy of Family Physicians of Malaysia · 2009
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Safer medicines management in primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2002
    Article
  15. Exploring factors associated with patients' satisfaction with medication change: a questionnaire survey.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2002
    Article
  16. The impact of a general practice group intervention on prescribing costs and patterns.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2002
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

S RodgersDivision of General Practice, Medical School, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham.
A J Avery
D Meechan
S Briant
M Geraghty
K Doran
D K Whynes

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIt has been suggested that the employment of pharmacists in general practice might moderate the growth in prescribing costs. However, empirical evidence for this proposition has been lacking. We report the results of a controlled trial of pharmacist intervention in United Kingdom general practice.

aimTo determine whether intervention practices made savings relative to controls.

methodAn evaluation of an initiative set up by Doncaster Health Authority. Eight practices agreed to take part and received intensive input from five pharmacists for one year (September 1996 to August 1997) at a cost of 163,000 Pounds. Changes in prescribing patterns were investigated by comparing these practices with eight individually matched controls for both the year of the intervention and the previous year. Prescribing data (PACTLINE) were used to assess these changes. The measures used to take account of differences in the populations of the practices included the ASTRO-PU for overall prescribing and the STAR-PU for prescribing in specific therapeutic areas. Differences between intervention and control practices were subjected to Wilcoxon matched-pairs, signed-ranks tests.

resultsThe median (minimum to maximum) rise in prescribing costs per ASTRO-PU was 0.85 Pound (-1.95 Pounds to 2.05 Pounds) in the intervention practices compared with 2.55 Pounds (1.74 Pounds to 4.65 Pounds) in controls (P = 0.025). Had the cost growth of the intervention group been as high as that of the controls, their total prescribing expenditure would have been around 347,000 Pounds higher.

conclusionThis study suggests that the use of pharmacists did control prescribing expenditure sufficiently to offset their employment costs.

Indexed as

Community Pharmacy ServicesCosts and Cost AnalysisDrug TherapyEnglandEvaluation Studies as TopicFamily PracticeHumansProfessional Practice

Identifiers

PMID10756613
PMCPMC1313499

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.