ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2012
Cluster randomized trials of prescription medicines or prescribing policy: public and general practitioner opinions in Scotland.
Article in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating Diuretics in Normal Care (EVIDENCE): a feasibility report of a pilot cluster randomised trial of prescribing policy in primary care to compare the effectiveness of thiazide-type diuretics in hypertension.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2022Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
aimsTo understand public and general practitioner (GP) opinion on the acceptability of randomized policy design (RPD) studies (cluster randomized trials) of prescription medicines in Scotland.
methodsWe surveyed public opinion on the concept of RPD studies in a sample of 1040 adults to determine acceptability and understand how people feel when changes are made to their medicines. We also surveyed GPs (n = 1034) about the concept of RPD studies as a tool for improving understanding of comparative effectiveness and safety of medicines in the 'usual care' setting.
resultsThirty per cent of people would be happy to receive a letter about randomized policy changes to their therapy, 31% would not mind or had no opinion and 39% would be unhappy. This view was sensitive to the reason for change; effectiveness and safety reasons were most acceptable (96%) and cost saving least acceptable (39%). Only 19% thought randomized policy change was not an acceptable method of determining the best treatments. Eighty-one per cent of respondents were willing for their medical data to be followed up to compare drug treatments (further 10% undecided). Participants reporting long-term medical conditions and those reporting previous changes to drug therapy were more in favour of RPD studies than other participants. Thirty-three per cent (n = 341) of GPs responded to our survey. Of these, 45% were in favour of RPD studies, 19% were undecided and 36% not in favour.
conclusionsThe public in Scotland is broadly supportive of the concept of randomized policy design studies of medicines, while there is a spread of opinion among GPs.
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.