ArticleBMC health services research2009
Is new drug prescribing in primary care specialist induced?
Article in BMC health services research, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Factors affecting the uptake of new medicines: a systematic literature review.BMC health services research · 2014Pooled it
- Prescriber Uptake and Use of Novel Lipid-Lowering Therapies.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2025Article
- GPs' perceptions of their relationship with the pharmaceutical industry: a qualitative study.BJGP open · 2021Article
- Impact of a change of bronchodilator medications in a hospital drug formulary on intra- and out-of-hospital drug prescriptions: interrupted time series design with comparison group.Implementation science : IS · 2020Article
- Specialist physician perspectives on non-medical switching of prescription medications.Journal of market access & health policy · 2020Article
- Impact of removal and restriction of me-too medicines in a hospital drug formulary on in- and outpatient drug prescriptions: interrupted time series design with comparison group.Implementation science : IS · 2019Article
- Seeding trials: Marketing gimmick or credible scientific research.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2019Article
- The Influence of Socioeconomic Status on Selection of Anticoagulation for Atrial Fibrillation.PloS one · 2016Article
- Characteristics affecting oral anticoagulant therapy choice among patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation: a retrospective claims analysis.BMC health services research · 2014Article
- The influence of hospital drug formulary policies on the prescribing patterns of proton pump inhibitors in primary care.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2014Article
- Danish physicians' preferences for prescribing escitalopram over citalopram and sertraline to treatment-naïve patients: a national, register-based study.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2013Article
- [To enlighten and to dazzle: a case of an inadequate prescription of prasugrel with an adverse reaction of urticaria].Atencion primaria · 2013Article
- [Induced prescription in primary care: a bioethics perspective].Atencion primaria · 2012Article
- Pharmaceutical cost control in primary care: opinion and contributions by healthcare professionals.BMC health services research · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMedical specialists are often seen as the first prescribers of new drugs. However, the extent to which specialists influence new drug prescribing in primary care is largely unknown.
methodsThis study estimates the influence of medical specialists on new drug prescribing in primary care shortly after market introduction. The influence of medical specialists on prescribing of five new drugs was measured in a cohort of 103 GPs, working in 59 practices, over the period 1999 until 2003. The influence of medical specialists on new drug prescribing in primary care was assessed using three outcome measures. Firstly, the proportion of patients receiving their first prescription for a new or reference drug from a specialist. Secondly, the proportion of GPs prescribing new drugs before any specialist prescribes to their patients. Thirdly, we compared the time until the GP's first own prescribing between GPs who waited for prescriptions from specialists and those who did not.
resultsThe influence of specialists showed considerable differences among the new drugs studied. The proportion of patients receiving their first prescription from a specialist was greatest for the combination salmeterol/fluticasone (60.2%), and lowest for rofecoxib (23.0%). The proportion of GPs prescribing new drugs before waiting for prescriptions from medical specialists ranged from 21.1% in the case of esomeprazole to 32.9% for rofecoxib. Prescribing new drugs by specialists did not shorten the GP's own time to prescribing.
conclusionThis study shows that the influence of medical specialists is clearly visible for all new drugs and often greater than for the existing older drugs, but the rapid uptake of new drugs in primary care does not seem specialist induced in all cases. GPs are responsible for a substantial amount of all early prescriptions for new drugs and for a subpopulation specialist endorsement is not a requisite to initiate in new drug prescribing. This contradicts with the idea that the diffusion of newly marketed drugs always follows a two-step model, with medical specialists as the innovators and GPs as the followers.
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.