4.7 Article

Explaining variation in antibiotic prescribing between general practices in the UK

期刊

JOURNAL OF ANTIMICROBIAL CHEMOTHERAPY
卷 73, 期 -, 页码 27-35

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jac/dkx501

关键词

-

资金

  1. Public Health England (PHE)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Primary care practices in England differ in antibiotic prescribing rates, and, anecdotally, prescribers justify high prescribing rates based on their individual case mix. The aim of this paper was to explore to what extent factors such as patient comorbidities explain this variation in antibiotic prescribing. Primary care consultation and prescribing data recorded in The Health Improvement Network (THIN) database in 2013 were used. Boosted regression trees (BRTs) and negative binomial regression (NBR) models were used to evaluate associations between predictors and antibiotic prescribing rates. The following variables were considered as potential predictors: various infection-related consultation rates, proportions of patients with comorbidities, proportion of patients with inhaled/systemic corticosteroids or immunosuppressive drugs, and demographic traits. The median antibiotic prescribing rate was 65.6 (IQR 57.4-74.0) per 100 registered patients among 348 English practices. In the BRT model, consultation rates had the largest total relative influence on antibiotic prescribing rate (53.5%), followed by steroid and immunosuppressive drugs (31.6%) and comorbidities (12.2%). Only 21% of the deviance could be explained by an NBR model considering only comorbidities and age and gender, whereas 57% of the deviance could be explained by the model considering all variables. The majority of practice-level variation in antibiotic prescribing cannot be explained by variation in prevalence of comorbidities. Factors such as high consultation rates for respiratory tract infections and high prescribing rates for corticosteroids could explain much of the variation, and as such may be considered in determining a practice's potential to reduce prescribing.

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

4.7
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