ArticlePrimary health care research & development2022
Good versus poor prescribers: the comparison of prescribing competencies in primary care.
Article in Primary health care research & development, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pharmacy practice and policy research in Türkiye: a systematic review of literature.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2024Review
- Prescription practices of physicians, quality of care, and patients' safety: A mixed methods comprehensive study.International journal of health sciencesArticle
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo compare the competencies of primary care physicians (PCPs) with poor and good prescribing performance in frequently encountered indications.
backgroundPrimary care centers are one of the mostly visited health facilities by the population for different health issues.
methodsIn this cross-sectional study, we analyzed 6 125 487 prescriptions generated by 1431 PCPs which were selected by systematic sampling in 2016 in Istanbul. We defined PCPs as poor prescriber (n = 227) or good prescriber (n = 210) in terms of their prescribing performance per WHO/INRUD criteria. We compared solo diagnosis prescriptions of these two groups in 'percentage of prescriptions in compliance with clinical guidelines' and also rational prescribing indicators.
findingsPoor prescribers and good prescribers significantly differed in each of the prescribing indicators for their all solo diagnosis prescriptions. Hypertension had the highest difference of the average cost per encounter (Δ = 284.2%) between poor prescribers (US$43.99 ± 63.05) and good prescribers (US$11.45 ± 45.0), whereas headache had the highest difference between the groups in the percentage encounters with an antibiotic (14.9% vs. 1.5%). Detailed analysis of the prescribing performances showed significantly higher values of each WHO/INRUD indicators for all examined diagnoses. We found significantly higher percentages of guideline-compliant drugs in good prescribers compared to that in poor prescribers in hypertension (40.8% vs 34.8%), tonsillopharyngitis (57.9% vs 50.7%), and acute sinusitis (46.4% vs 43.6%).
conclusionThis study shows that the prescribing performances of PCPs are not rational enough in terms of drug selection and prescription content. Furthermore, even the physicians who have good prescribing practice appear as not satisfactorily rational in compliance with current pharmacotherapy competencies.
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.