Evidence map›Paper›PMID 8343631›Full record

ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)1993

Explaining variations in prescribing costs across England.

T Morton-Jones, M Pringle

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 1993. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing 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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Do GPs working in practice with high or low prescribing costs have different views on prescribing cost issues?The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2000
    Article
  9. Morbidity, deprivation, and antidepressant prescribing in general practice.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 1999
    Article
  10. A comparison of three methods of setting prescribing budgets, using data derived from defined daily dose analyses of historic patterns of use.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 1998
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Investigation of whether on-site general practice counsellors have an impact on psychotropic drug prescribing rates and costs.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 1996
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Using unemployment rates to predict prescribing trends in England.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 1994
    Article
  20. More therapeutic conservatism.Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of London · 1993
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

T Morton-JonesDepartment of General Practice, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham.
M Pringle

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo derive a predictive model for national prescribing behaviour in terms of basic morbidity and demographic factors.

design24 demographic, morbidity, and practice factors were entered into a multiple regression analysis to determine the net ingredient cost per patient.

settingThe 90 family health service authorities in England for 1989.

resultsFor net ingredient cost per patient only two demographic factors (numbers of pensioners and the mobility of the registered population measured by list inflation) and two morbidity related factors (standardised mortality ratios and numbers of prepayment certificates issued) significantly contributed to a multiple regression model. This model explained 81% of the variation in net ingredient cost per registered patient between family health services authorities. The model also enabled a weighting factor of 4.6 (95% confidence interval 3.2 to 6.7) to be derived for the net ingredient cost for elderly patients (compared with the existing prescribing unit factor of 3).

conclusionsThe model shows that variations in prescribing costs essentially reflect demand. It also suggests that the current prescribing unit value of 3 for patients aged 65 or more underestimates the extra costs of prescribing for elderly patients.

Indexed as

Drug CostsDrug PrescriptionsEnglandFamily HealthFamily PracticeHumansPractice Patterns, Physicians'PrescriptionsRegression Analysis

Identifiers

PMID8343631
PMCPMC1678321

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.