Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39317506›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2024

Prescription charge policy acceptance among UK adults with and without long-term health conditions: a mixed-method survey.

Megan Rose Readman, Megan Polden, Lisa Brighton, Ayomide Oluseye, Ian Fairman, Ian Parkinson, Caroline Parkinson, Clarissa Giebel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Perverse incentives and ethical challenges for prescribing in English general practice.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

8 authors.

Megan Rose ReadmanDepartment of Primary Care and Mental Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK m.readman@liverpool.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-5259-7887
Megan PoldenDepartment of Primary Care and Mental Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1813-0765
Lisa BrightonDepartment of Palliative Care, Policy, and Rehabilitation, King's College London, Cicely Saunders Institute, London, UK.
Ayomide OluseyeFaculty of Wellbeing, Education and Language Studies, The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK.
Ian FairmanNational Institute of Health Research Applied Research Collaboration North West Coast, Liverpool, UK.
Ian ParkinsonNational Institute of Health Research Applied Research Collaboration North West Coast, Liverpool, UK.
Caroline ParkinsonNational Institute of Health Research Applied Research Collaboration North West Coast, Liverpool, UK.
Clarissa GiebelDepartment of Primary Care and Mental Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0746-0566

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesSince their introduction in 1952, per-prescribed item charges in England have continually risen. This study investigated the acceptability and impact of per-prescribed item charges, and awareness and use of initiatives designed to reduce prescription charge financial burden (the prescription prepayment certificate (PPC) initiative), in people living with and without long-term health conditions (LTHCs) in the UK.

designCross-sectional mixed-method survey of people with and without an LTHC across the UK.

participants381 people, 267 people with an LTHC and 114 people without an LTHC, participated. OUTCOME MEASURES: Acceptability and impact of prescription charge policy, awareness and use of the PPC.

resultsOver half (53.2 %) of participants disagreed with current per-prescribed item charges. In most domains, the impact of prescription charges did not differ between people with and without LTHCs. However, people with LTHCs were more likely to report financial burden and deviate from prescribed medication regimes. 35.29% of respondents were aware of the PPC, with people with LTHCs being more likely to be aware of and use this initiative. Qualitative findings indicate perceived inequalities in current policy with themes including (1) the need for re-evaluation; (2) the burden of prescription charges; (3) inconsistencies and inequalities in current policy; and (4) positive reflections of prescription charge policy.

conclusionsInconsistencies in current policy and a lack of public support may suggest that a re-evaluation of current policy is required. The lack of difference in the impact of prescription charge policy between people with and without LTHCs indicates that the effects of such policy are not constrained to people with LTHCs. Thus, policy amendments would benefit the wider population. Systematic efforts to increase awareness of the PPC and reduce inequalities in medical exemption criteria are suggested. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Study protocol and analysis strategy are preregistered on Open Science Framework (https://shorturl.at/IrvnS).

Indexed as

Health PolicyAdultAgedChronic DiseaseCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPrescription FeesSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited Kingdomhealth policyprescriptionspublic health

Identifiers

PMID39317506
PMCPMC11423742

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.