Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39947663›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2025

Variation in duration of repeat prescriptions: a primary care cohort study in England.

Brian MacKenna, Andrew D Brown, Richard Croker, Alex J Walker, Ben Goldacre, Apostolos Tsiachristas, Dave Evans, Peter Inglesby, Seb Bacon, Helen J Curtis

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2025. 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. Article
  2. Impact of structured medication reviews on prescribing in English primary care: a retrospective observational cohort study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026
    Observational
  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

10 authors.

Brian MacKennaNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences (NDPCHS), University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Bennett Institute for Applied Data Science, NDPCHS, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK brian.mackenna@phc.ox.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-3786-9063
Andrew D BrownNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences (NDPCHS), University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Bennett Institute for Applied Data Science, NDPCHS, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3688-8393
Richard CrokerNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences (NDPCHS), University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Bennett Institute for Applied Data Science, NDPCHS, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8114-9186
Alex J WalkerNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences (NDPCHS), University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Bennett Institute for Applied Data Science, NDPCHS, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4932-6135
Ben GoldacreNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences (NDPCHS), University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Bennett Institute for Applied Data Science, NDPCHS, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5127-4728
Apostolos TsiachristasNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences (NDPCHS), University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4662-8915
Dave EvansNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences (NDPCHS), University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Bennett Institute for Applied Data Science, NDPCHS, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Peter InglesbyNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences (NDPCHS), University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Bennett Institute for Applied Data Science, NDPCHS, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7784-1719
Seb BaconNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences (NDPCHS), University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Bennett Institute for Applied Data Science, NDPCHS, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6354-3454
Helen J CurtisNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences (NDPCHS), University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Bennett Institute for Applied Data Science, NDPCHS, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3429-9576

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMany patients receive repeat prescriptions for routine medications used to treat chronic conditions. Doctors typically issue repeat prescriptions with durations ranging from 28 to 84 days. There is currently no national guidance in England for the optimal prescription duration for routine medications.

aimTo evaluate current prescription durations for five common routine medications in England; explore and visualise geographical variation; and identify practice factors that are associated with shorter prescribing duration to inform policy making. DESIGN AND

settingA retrospective cohort study of NHS primary care prescribing data in England from December 2018 to November 2019.

methodThe prescription duration was analysed for five common routine medications in England; ramipril, atorvastatin, simvastatin, levothyroxine, and amlodipine. Variation was assessed between regional clinical commissioning groups (CCGs), and practice factors associated with different durations were identified.

resultsOf the common medications included, 28-day prescriptions accounted for 48.5% (2.5 billion) tablets/capsules issued, while 43.6% were issued for 56 days. There was very wide regional variation (7.2%-95.0%) in the proportion of 28-day prescriptions issued by CCGs. Practice dispensing status was the most likely predictor of prescription duration; dispensing practices had a higher 28-day prescribing proportion than non-dispensing practices. The proportion of patients with chronic conditions and the electronic health record system used by a practice were also associated with prescription duration.

conclusionThis analysis of OpenPrescribing data showed that repeat prescriptions of 28 days are common for patients taking routine medications for chronic conditions, particularly in dispensing practices. This provides data to inform the policy debate on current practice. Configuration of electronic health record systems offer an opportunity to implement and evaluate new policies on repeat prescription duration in England.

Indexed as

Drug PrescriptionsPractice Patterns, Physicians'Primary Health CareAmlodipineAtorvastatinChronic DiseaseEnglandFemaleHumansMaleRetrospective StudiesSimvastatinState MedicineTime FactorsAmlodipineAtorvastatinSimvastatinchronic diseaseelectronic health recordsprimary carerepeat prescriptionroutine medicationstatins

Identifiers

PMID39947663
PMCPMC12236966

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.