Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41776396›Full record

ArticleBMC primary care2026

Comparison of antibiotic prescription indexes by patient and physician gender and age: a cross-sectional study based on administrative data.

Lorenzo Stacchini, Silvia Forni, Tommaso Manciulli, Guglielmo Bonaccorsi, Leonardo Grilli, Flavia Franconi, Fabrizio Gemmi

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC primary care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Lorenzo Stacchini *Department of Health Sciences, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Silvia Forni *Quality and Equity Unit, Regional Health Agency of Tuscany, Florence, Italy. silvia.forni@ars.toscana.it.
Tommaso ManciulliQuality and Equity Unit, Regional Health Agency of Tuscany, Florence, Italy.
Guglielmo BonaccorsiDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Leonardo GrilliDepartment of Statistics, Computer Science, Applications, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Flavia FranconiLaboratory of Gender- Medicine, National Institute of Biostructures and Biosystems, Sassari, 07100, Italy.
Fabrizio GemmiQuality and Equity Unit, Regional Health Agency of Tuscany, Florence, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFew studies have examined the association between gender-differentiated patient–physician interactions and antimicrobial prescription (AP) patterns. We analyzed gender-specific differences in AP in relation to the sex and age of general practitioners (GPs), drawing on data from a comprehensive regional database in Tuscany, Italy.

methodsWe extracted data on primary care APs for 2023 using a population sample of 3,022,332 patients and 2,311 GPs. We used defined daily doses per 1,000 population per day (DDD/1000 population/day), the percentage of subjects with at least one antimicrobial prescription (AP prevalence), and the percentage of Access AP according to Access, Watch and Reserve (AwaRE) classification as indicators. We fitted regression models for each indicator with patient-physician gender dyads and other covariates. Adjusted indicators and average marginal effects (AMEs) of having a female GP separately for the female and male patients are reported together with the difference between the above AMEs.

resultsA total of 1,583,893 female patients (52.4%) and 1,104 female GPs (54.1%) were included. Same-sex care was observed for 774,411 female patients (48.9%) and 815,887 male patients (56.7%). Female GPs prescribed fewer antibiotics—in terms of both DDD/1000 population/day and prevalence of AP—and were more likely to prescribe Access antibiotics. These differences were more pronounced among male patients. Among male patients, having a female GP was associated with an adjusted AME of -0.78 DDD/1000 population/day (95% CI -1.09 to -0.47), -0.21% in AP prevalence (95% CI -1.74 to -0.69), and + 0.73% in proportion of Access AP (95% CI -0.10 to 1.56). Among female patients with a female GP, the adjusted AME was − 0.51 DDD/1000 population/day (95% CI -0.86 to -0.15), -0.59% in AP prevalence (95% CI -1.18 to -0.004), and + 0.24% in proportion of Access AP (95% CI -0.52 to 0.99). When the patient-GP gender dyad and GP age were included, male GPs under 40 years of age showed consistently lower antibiotic prescription—both in DDD/1000 population/day and AP prevalence—and a higher proportion of Access AP compared with female GPs, particularly among female patients. In this subgroup, the adjusted AME of having a female GP was + 0.87 DDD/1000 population/day (95% CI 0.06 to 1.69), + 1.86% in AP prevalence (95% CI 0.52 to 3.2), and − 1.44% in Access AP (95% CI -3.01 to 0.13).

conclusionsIn our analysis of a large administrative dataset, we observed that the gender-differentiated interaction between physician and patient was associated with antimicrobial prescription. Overall, female GPs showed lower AP rates. However, among physicians under 40 years of age, male GPs had lower prescription indicators than their female counterparts, especially for male patients. The differences highlighted in our study could be the target of stewardship interventions.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsDrug PrescriptionsGeneral PractitionersPractice Patterns, Physicians'AdolescentAdultAgedAge FactorsChildChild, PreschoolCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansInfantItalyMaleAnti-Bacterial AgentsAntimicrobial consumptionAntimicrobial resistanceDefined daily dosesGender differencesIntersectional studies

Identifiers

PMID41776396
PMCPMC13063550

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.