Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29208621›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2017

Retrospective, multicohort analysis of the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) to determine differences in the cost of medication wastage, dispensing fees and prescriber time of issuing either short (<60 days) or long (≥60 days) prescription lengths in primary care for common, chronic conditions in the UK.

Brett Doble, Rupert Payne, Amelia Harshfield, Edward C F Wilson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Impact of issuing longer- versus shorter-duration prescriptions: a systematic review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2018
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Variation in duration of repeat prescriptions: a primary care cohort study in England.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    Article
  5. Review
  6. 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

4 authors.

Brett DobleCambridge Centre for Health Services Research, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4948-8831
Rupert PayneCambridge Centre for Health Services Research, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Amelia HarshfieldCambridge Centre for Health Services Research, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Edward C F WilsonCambridge Centre for Health Services Research, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8369-1577

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo investigate patterns of early repeat prescriptions and treatment switching over an 11-year period to estimate differences in the cost of medication wastage, dispensing fees and prescriber time for short (<60 days) and long (≥60 days) prescription lengths from the perspective of the National Health Service in the UK.

settingRetrospective, multiple cohort study of primary care prescriptions from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink.

participantsFive random samples of 50 000 patients each prescribed oral drugs for (1) glucose control in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM); (2) hypertension in T2DM; (3) statins (lipid management) in T2DM; (4) secondary prevention of myocardial infarction; and (5) depression. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The volume of medication wastage from early repeat prescriptions and three other types of treatment switches was quantified and costed. Dispensing fees and prescriber time were also determined. Total unnecessary costs (TUC; cost of medication wastage, dispensing fees and prescriber time) associated with <60 day and ≥60 day prescriptions, standardised to a 120-day period, were then compared.

resultsLonger prescription lengths were associated with more medication waste per prescription. However, when including dispensing fees and prescriber time, longer prescription lengths resulted in lower TUC. This finding was consistent across all five cohorts. Savings ranged from £8.38 to £12.06 per prescription per 120 days if a single long prescription was issued instead of multiple short prescriptions. Prescriber time costs accounted for the largest component of TUC.

conclusionsShorter prescription lengths could potentially reduce medication wastage, but they may also increase dispensing fees and/or the time burden of issuing prescriptions.

Indexed as

Chronic DiseaseCohort StudiesDrug PrescriptionsHumansPractice Patterns, Physicians'Prescription FeesPrimary Health CareRetrospective StudiesTime FactorsUnited Kingdomhealth economicshealth policyprimary caretherapeutics

Identifiers

PMID29208621
PMCPMC5719293

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.