Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12817357›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2003

A qualitative study to explore influences on general practitioners' decisions to prescribe new drugs.

Ann Jacoby, Monica Smith, Martin Eccles

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Ann JacobyDepartment of Primary Care, Whelan Building, The Quadrangle, Brownlow Hill, Liverpool, L69 3GB. ajacoby@liv.ac.uk
Monica Smith
Martin Eccles

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEnsuring appropriate prescribing is an important challenge for the health service, and the need for research that takes account of the reasons behind individual general practitioners' (GPs) prescribing decisions has been highlighted.

aimTo explore differences among GPs in their decisions to prescribe new drugs. DESIGN OF STUDY: Qualitative approach, using in-depth semistructured interviews.

settingNorthern and Yorkshire Health Authority Region.

methodParticipants were identified from a random sample of 520 GPs in a quantitative study of patterns of uptake of eight recently introduced drugs. Purposeful sampling ensured inclusion of GPs prescribing any of the eight drugs and working in a range of practice settings. Fifty-six GPs were interviewed, using a topic guide. Interviews were recorded on audiotape. Transcribed text was methodically coded and data were analysed by constantly comparing emerging themes.

resultsBoth low and high prescribers shared a view of themselves as conservative in their prescribing behaviour. Low prescribers appeared to conform more strongly to group norms and identified a consensus among practice partners in prescribing and cost-consciousness. Conformism to group norms was represented by a commitment to practice formularies. High prescribers more often expressed themselves to be indifferent to drug costs and a shared practice ethos.

conclusionsA shift in the attitudes of some GPs is required before cost-effectiveness is routinely incorporated in drug prescribing. The promotion of rational prescribing is likely to be more successful if efforts are focused on GPs' appreciation of cost issues and attitudes towards shared decision-making and responsibility.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelDrug Utilization ReviewDecision MakingDrug CostsEnglandHumansPhysicians, FamilyPractice Patterns, Physicians'Qualitative Research

Identifiers

PMID12817357
PMCPMC1314511

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.