ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners1997
Poles apart? The views of general practitioners and family health services authority advisers on prescribing cost issues.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 1997. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Controlled trial of pharmacist intervention in general practice: the effect on prescribing costs.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 1999Trial
- Explanatory model of prescribing behavior in prescription of statins in family practice.Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2010Article
- 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 · 2000Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn 1994, an Audit Commission report estimated that Pounds 425 million could be saved from the national drug budget if general practitioners (GPs) altered their prescribing in various ways.
aimTo assess the views of GPs and family health services authority (FHSA) advisers on issues similar to those raised in the Audit Commission report.
methodA questionnaire was sent to a 1 in 20 sample of GPs from 33 randomly selected FHSA areas (n = 576) and all FHSA advisers (n = 285).
resultsA total of 419 (72.7%) GPs and 234 (82.1%) advisers replied. There were statistically significant differences (P < 0.01) between GPs and advisers on all but one of the statements. In particular, there were marked differences on some of the statements relating to substitution with cheaper similar drugs. Differences were smaller for statements on the use of drugs of limited therapeutic value, the range of drugs prescribed, and practice prescribing policies. Differences were noted between subgroups of GPs in response to some of the statements.
conclusionThe majority of GPs in this survey gave responses that were supportive of many of the types of suggestion made by the Audit Commission. However, it is suggested that differences of opinion between GPs and FHSA advisers may have implications for the development of strategies to control prescribing costs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
9231467PMC1313024What 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.