4.3 Article

Antibiotic prescribing to Kentucky Medicaid children, 2012-2017: Prescribing is higher in rural areas

期刊

JOURNAL OF RURAL HEALTH
卷 38, 期 2, 页码 427-432

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jrh.12584

关键词

antibiotic stewardship; antibiotic use; health services research; Medicaid; rural children

资金

  1. Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services: Department for Medicaid Services, State University Partnership

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study indicates that female, children under 2 years old, white, and rural children in Kentucky Medicaid have higher rates of antibiotic prescriptions. There is significant geographic variability in prescribing, with children in Eastern Kentucky receiving more than 3 courses of antibiotics a year. Most antibiotic prescriptions for children are written by general practitioners and nurse practitioners rather than pediatricians.
Purpose Antibiotic resistance is a major public health threat. Antibiotic use is the main driver of resistance, with children and the state of Kentucky having particularly high rates of outpatient antibiotic prescribing. The purpose of this study was to describe patient and provider characteristics associated with pediatric antibiotic use in Kentucky Medicaid children. Methods We used Medicaid prescription claims data from 2012 to 2017 to describe patterns of pediatric antibiotic receipt in Kentucky. Patient and provider variables were analyzed to identify variations in prescribing. Findings Children who were female, less than 2 years old, White, and living in a rural area had consistently higher rates of antibiotic prescriptions. There was significant geographic variability in prescribing, with children in Eastern Kentucky receiving more than 3 courses of antibiotics a year. Most antibiotic prescriptions for children were written by general practitioners and nurse practitioners rather than pediatricians. Conclusion These findings support the need for extensive antibiotic stewardship efforts inclusive of rural outpatient practices.

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

4.3
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