荷兰给澳大利亚的经验教训:2013-2021年抗抑郁药配药趋势的跨国比较以及影响处方的背景因素

Katharine A Wallis, Pieter J S Dikken, Piumika Sooriyaarachchi, Arthur M Bohnen, Maria Donald
{"title":"荷兰给澳大利亚的经验教训:2013-2021年抗抑郁药配药趋势的跨国比较以及影响处方的背景因素","authors":"Katharine A Wallis, Pieter J S Dikken, Piumika Sooriyaarachchi, Arthur M Bohnen, Maria Donald","doi":"10.1071/PY23168","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is concern internationally about increasing antidepressant use. Most antidepressants are prescribed in general practice. The aim of this study was to compare trends in antidepressant dispensing in Australia and the Netherlands over the 9years from 2013 to 2021, and to explore reasons for differences.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A convergent mixed methods study including analysis of publicly available antidepressant dispensing data obtained from Australia's Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and the Dutch Foundation for Pharmaceutical Statistics and a search of relevant literature to compare contextual factors influencing prescribing were undertaken.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In 2013, antidepressant dispensing rates in Australia were nearly twice as high as those in the Netherlands (82.5 versus 44.3DDD/1000/day) and increased to be more than twice as high by 2021 (115.6 versus 48.8DDD/1000/day). Antidepressant dispensing increased by 40% in Australia over the nine study years, but by only 10% in the Netherlands. Our scan of the literature confirms that while population factors, health system structure, and clinical guideline recommendations are largely consistent across the two countries, a multifaceted approach in the Netherlands involving improved access to non-pharmacological alternatives, initiatives targeting safer antidepressant prescribing, and tight regulation of pharmaceutical industry influence on prescribers, has successfully curtailed increasing antidepressant use.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Australia may learn from the Netherlands' approach to redress increasing antidepressant use.</p>","PeriodicalId":93892,"journal":{"name":"Australian journal of primary health","volume":" ","pages":"NULL"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Lessons from the Netherlands for Australia: cross-country comparison of trends in antidepressant dispensing 2013-2021 and contextual factors influencing prescribing.\",\"authors\":\"Katharine A Wallis, Pieter J S Dikken, Piumika Sooriyaarachchi, Arthur M Bohnen, Maria Donald\",\"doi\":\"10.1071/PY23168\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is concern internationally about increasing antidepressant use. Most antidepressants are prescribed in general practice. The aim of this study was to compare trends in antidepressant dispensing in Australia and the Netherlands over the 9years from 2013 to 2021, and to explore reasons for differences.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A convergent mixed methods study including analysis of publicly available antidepressant dispensing data obtained from Australia's Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and the Dutch Foundation for Pharmaceutical Statistics and a search of relevant literature to compare contextual factors influencing prescribing were undertaken.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In 2013, antidepressant dispensing rates in Australia were nearly twice as high as those in the Netherlands (82.5 versus 44.3DDD/1000/day) and increased to be more than twice as high by 2021 (115.6 versus 48.8DDD/1000/day). Antidepressant dispensing increased by 40% in Australia over the nine study years, but by only 10% in the Netherlands. Our scan of the literature confirms that while population factors, health system structure, and clinical guideline recommendations are largely consistent across the two countries, a multifaceted approach in the Netherlands involving improved access to non-pharmacological alternatives, initiatives targeting safer antidepressant prescribing, and tight regulation of pharmaceutical industry influence on prescribers, has successfully curtailed increasing antidepressant use.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Australia may learn from the Netherlands' approach to redress increasing antidepressant use.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":93892,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Australian journal of primary health\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"NULL\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Australian journal of primary health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1071/PY23168\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian journal of primary health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1071/PY23168","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:国际上对抗抑郁药使用的增加感到担忧。大多数抗抑郁药都是常规处方。本研究的目的是比较2013年至2021年9年间澳大利亚和荷兰抗抑郁药配药的趋势,并探讨差异的原因。方法:采用融合混合方法研究,包括分析从澳大利亚药物福利计划、遣返药物福利计划和荷兰药物统计基金会获得的公开可获得的抗抑郁药配药数据,并检索相关文献以比较影响处方的背景因素。结果:2013年,澳大利亚的抗抑郁药配药率几乎是荷兰的两倍(82.5比44.3DDD/1000/天),到2021年增加到两倍以上(115.6比48.8DDD/1000/天)。在9年的研究中,澳大利亚的抗抑郁药配药增加了40%,而荷兰只增加了10%。我们对文献的扫描证实,虽然两国的人口因素、卫生系统结构和临床指南建议在很大程度上是一致的,但荷兰采取了多方面的方法,包括改善非药物替代品的获取,针对更安全的抗抑郁药处方的举措,以及对制药行业对处方者影响的严格监管,成功地减少了抗抑郁药的使用。结论:澳大利亚可以借鉴荷兰的方法来纠正日益增加的抗抑郁药使用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Lessons from the Netherlands for Australia: cross-country comparison of trends in antidepressant dispensing 2013-2021 and contextual factors influencing prescribing.

Background: There is concern internationally about increasing antidepressant use. Most antidepressants are prescribed in general practice. The aim of this study was to compare trends in antidepressant dispensing in Australia and the Netherlands over the 9years from 2013 to 2021, and to explore reasons for differences.

Methods: A convergent mixed methods study including analysis of publicly available antidepressant dispensing data obtained from Australia's Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and the Dutch Foundation for Pharmaceutical Statistics and a search of relevant literature to compare contextual factors influencing prescribing were undertaken.

Results: In 2013, antidepressant dispensing rates in Australia were nearly twice as high as those in the Netherlands (82.5 versus 44.3DDD/1000/day) and increased to be more than twice as high by 2021 (115.6 versus 48.8DDD/1000/day). Antidepressant dispensing increased by 40% in Australia over the nine study years, but by only 10% in the Netherlands. Our scan of the literature confirms that while population factors, health system structure, and clinical guideline recommendations are largely consistent across the two countries, a multifaceted approach in the Netherlands involving improved access to non-pharmacological alternatives, initiatives targeting safer antidepressant prescribing, and tight regulation of pharmaceutical industry influence on prescribers, has successfully curtailed increasing antidepressant use.

Conclusions: Australia may learn from the Netherlands' approach to redress increasing antidepressant use.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信