ArticleBMC pharmacology & toxicology2015
Differences in antibiotic use between patients with and without a regular doctor in Hong Kong.
Article in BMC pharmacology & toxicology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Factors influencing inappropriate use of antibiotics in outpatient and community settings in China: a mixed-methods systematic review.BMJ global health · 2020Pooled it
- Weighing patient attributes in antibiotic prescribing for upper respiratory tract infections: A discrete choice experiment on primary care physicians in Hubei Province, China.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLiterature shows that continuity of care from a primary care physician is associated with better patient satisfaction and preventive care. This may also have an effect on patients' use of antibiotics. This study investigated the differences in antibiotic use between patients with and without a regular doctor in a pluralistic health care system.
methodsA cross-sectional telephone questionnaire survey using randomly selected household phone numbers was conducted in Hong Kong. Several key areas about antibiotic use were compared between the respondents with a regular doctor and those without.
resultsThe response rate was 68.3 %. Of the 2,471 respondents, 1,450 (58.7 %) had a regular doctor, 942 (38.1 %) without, and 79 (3.2 %) did not give a clear answer. The respondents with a regular doctor were more likely to report that they always finished the full course of antibiotics (74.2 % vs 62.4 %), as well as using antibiotics for their last upper respiratory tract infections (17.4 % vs 10.1 %). The association with antibiotic use remained significant in the multivariable logistic regression analysis after adjusting for other confounding factors (P < 0.001, OR = 1.76, 95 % CI:(1.27, 2.48)).
conclusionsWhile patients with a regular doctor, compared to those without, were more likely to report finishing the full course of antibiotics, they also had nearly twice the chance of reporting antibiotic use for upper respiratory tract infections. This challenges the common belief of the benefits in having a regular doctor.
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.