4.2 Article

Assessment of doctor-shopping for high dosage buprenorphine maintenance treatment in a French region:: development of a new method for prescription database

期刊

PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY AND DRUG SAFETY
卷 13, 期 7, 页码 473-481

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pds.892

关键词

doctor-shopping; prescription database; buprenorphine; maintenance treatment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose To assess the extent of doctor-shopping for buprenorphine maintenance therapy in a French region with a specific indicator. Methods Use of a quasi-exhaustive prescription database in a French region (information system of the French General Health Insurance Scheme). Extraction of all buprenorphine prescriptions between September 1999 and December 2000. Definition and calculation of three quantities for each patient: delivered, prescribed and doctor-shopping quantity. The calculation of these three quantities is done by an automated and reproducible method determining the overlaps in prescription periods of different physicians for a given patient. Calculation of the corresponding daily dose was done for each quantity. Results A total of 64 326 prescriptions of buprenorphine by 1313 physicians to 3259 patients were extracted. Quantities and doses were calculated for 2587 patients. The total doctor-shopping quantity represented 18.6% of the delivered quantity. Doctor-shopping involved a minority of patients and was highly concentrated: 87 patients with doctor-shopping doses superior to 16 mg/day were responsible for 45.4% of the total doctor-shopping quantity. Conclusions Doctor-shopping appears to be an important problem for buprenorphine maintenance treatment in France but may be resolved by regulatory interventions. The use of adequate indicators on prescription databases may help to limit the effects of such interventions on legitimate care. The method presented here may be used with slight adaptations for other medications to assess their abuse potential. Copyright (C) 2003 John Wiley Sons, Ltd.

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

4.2
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