4.6 Article

Has UK guidance affected general practitioner antibiotic prescribing for otitis media in children?

期刊

JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
卷 30, 期 4, 页码 479-486

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/pubmed/fdn072

关键词

-

资金

  1. Department of Health Public Health Career Scientist Award
  2. Department of Health
  3. European Commission
  4. MRC [G0400546] Funding Source: UKRI
  5. Medical Research Council [G0400546, G0400546B] Funding Source: researchfish
  6. National Institute for Health Research [PDA/02/06/076] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Since 1997, UK guidance has advocated limiting antibiotic prescribing for otitis media. It is not known whether this has influenced general practitioner prescribing practice. To investigate the trends in diagnoses and antibiotic prescribing for otitis media in children in relation to guidance. We used the General Practice Research Database to conduct time-trend analyses of diagnoses and antibiotic prescribing for otitis media in 3 months to 15 years old, between 1990 and 2006. A total of 1 210 237 otitis media episodes were identified in 464 845 children; two-thirds (68%; 818 006) received antibiotics. Twenty-two percent (267 335) were classified as acute, 85% (227 335) of which received antibiotics. Overall, antibiotic prescribing for otitis media declined by 51% between 1995 and 2000. Much of this reduction predated guidance. During this period, prescribing for otitis media coded as acute increased by 22%. Children diagnosed with acute otitis media were more likely to receive antibiotics than otitis media not coded as acute (P < 0.05). From 2000 prescribing plateaued, despite publication of further guidance. Otitis media diagnoses consistently paralleled prescribing. The reduction in antibiotic prescribing for otitis media predated guidance. The simultaneous decrease in prescribing for non-acute otitis media and increase for acute otitis media suggest diagnostic transfer, possibly to justify the decision to treat.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据