4.2 Article

Predictors of discontinuation of benzodiazepine prescription after sending a letter to long-term benzodiazepine users in family practice

Journal

FAMILY PRACTICE
Volume 23, Issue 1, Pages 65-72

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/fampra/cmi065

Keywords

benzodiazepines; discontinuation letter; family practice; minimal intervention strategy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. Predictors of benzodiazepine discontinuation after sending a discontinuation letter by the family practitioner have not been established sufficiently. Objective. To identify predictors of short- and long-term discontinuation of benzodiazepine use and relapse in use after a minimal intervention with a discontinuation letter followed by an offer for an evaluation consultation. Methods. Predictors of benzodiazepine discontinuation and relapse in use were studied by logistic regression analysis and survival analysis within a family practice population of long-term benzodiazepine users (n = 1707) addressed by a discontinuation letter and followed for 21 months. Results. A lower baseline prescription, a shorter duration of use, male gender and use of an agent with a half-life time < 24 hours were predictive of complete discontinuation in the short (6 months) and long term (21 months). Multiple agent use at baseline, use of antidepressants at 6 months and benzodiazepine type (anxiolytic/hypnotic) at baseline predicted relapse. Attendance at an evaluation consultation 3 months after the letter was sent was not predictive of discontinuation or relapse. Conclusions. Amount of baseline use and duration of use are the main determinative characteristics of successful discontinuation. The discontinuation letter intervention is suitable for use with a broad group of long-term benzodiazepine users in family practice and can be used as a first step within a stepped care approach to decrease long-term benzodiazepine use.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available