ArticleScandinavian journal of primary health care2011
Primary care physicians' adoption of new drugs is not associated with their clinical interests: a pharmacoepidemiologic study.
Article in Scandinavian journal of primary health care, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Barriers and facilitators to the uptake of new medicines into clinical practice: a systematic review.BMC health services research · 2021Pooled it
- Factors affecting the uptake of new medicines: a systematic literature review.BMC health services research · 2014Pooled it
- A randomized controlled trial comparing two ways of providing evidence-based drug information to GPs.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2013Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES. Increasing drug expenditures call for better understanding of the reasons behind individual general practitioners' (GPs') prescribing decisions. The aim was to analyse associations between GPs' clinical interests and their preference for new drugs. DESIGN. Historical cohort study using population-based prescription data and data collected by postal questionnaire. SETTING AND SUBJECTS. A total of 68 single-handed GPs in the County of Funen, Denmark. Main outcome measures. GPs' preferences for two new (2004) drug groups (selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors and angiotensin-II antagonists) were analysed. The preference was defined as the percentage of patients receiving a new drug among first-time users of either the new drug or an older alternative. The GPs' preference proportion was modelled using linear regression analysis. Data from a questionnaire on GPs' interest in corresponding clinical areas (musculoskeletal diseases and hypertension, respectively), continuing medical education (CME) activities, and previous employment were the independent variables. RESULTS. The adjusted mean difference in preference for new drugs between GPs with high and low interest in each of the two clinical areas was 0.4% (95% CI -2.0% to 2.8%), and -2.2% (-15.0% to 10.7%), respectively. Only current CME activities in the area of hypertension were significantly associated with GPs' preference for new drugs (adjusted mean difference 17.9% (95% CI 5.8% to 30.0%). CONCLUSION. No clear association between GPs' self-rated clinical interest and their prescribing of new drugs was found.
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.