ArticleAtencion primaria2002
[Factors affecting drug expenditure in the primary care centre in a health area].
Article in Atencion primaria, 2002. 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.
- [Patient workload and costs, intensity and quality of family doctor prescriptions].Atencion primaria · 2011Article
- Does the pharmacy expenditure of patients always correspond with their morbidity burden? Exploring new approaches in the interpretation of pharmacy expenditure.BMC public health · 2010Article
- Pharmaceutical cost control in primary care: opinion and contributions by healthcare professionals.BMC health services research · 2009Article
- [Drug expenditure in primary care].Atencion primariaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo identify the factors affecting drug expenditure.Design. Cross-sectional study.Setting. Madrid Primary Care area.
participants21 health centres. MEASUREMENTS: Association of the drug expenditure per inhabitant of each health centre during 1999 with the characteristics of its staff and operation of the centre. MAIN
resultsExpenditure on drugs per inhabitant, 14360 plus minus 3040 pesetas (86.31 plus minus 18.27; general practitioners, 19.62 plus minus 23.8%; doctors working as locums, 40.48 plus minus 20.72%; women doctors, 59.76 plus minus 13.36%; family doctors, 38.57 plus minus 21.35%; team nurses, 86.6 plus minus 18.27%; population over 65, 18.03 plus minus 7.73%; patients per day attended by each general practitioner, 32.82 plus minus 3.81; number of sessions per year on prescription profiles, 5 plus minus 3.91; prescription avoidable because of health card: 3106 plus minus 808 pesetas (18.67 plus minus 4.86 ); compliance with service offer, 1.7 plus minus 3.78. Drug expenditure per inhabitant dropped when sessions on prescription profiles (p = 0.013), the percentage of women doctors (p = 0.067) and the percentage of family doctors (p = 0.035) increased; and it dropped too when the over-65 population (p = 0.099) and the amount of prescription avoidable through the card (p = 0.034) dropped. In the multivariate analysis, the sessions on prescription profiles (ss = -843), the percentage of nurses in the reformed model (ss = -155), the percentage of family doctors (ss = -142) and the percentage of doctors from the traditional model (ss = -121) explain 71.2% of the variability in drug expenditure per inhabitant (F = 6.909; p = 0.002).
conclusionsThe sessions to discuss prescription profiles, the presence of nurses from the reform model, postgraduate medical training and the employment of doctors under the traditional model are the factors that our study finds are linked to lower drug expenditure per inhabitant.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.