荷兰全科医生长期开具的低价值减酸药处方:患者教育干预措施的影响

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Joris L. J. M. Müskens, Simone A. van Dulmen, Karin Hek, Gert P. Westert, Rudolf B. Kool
{"title":"荷兰全科医生长期开具的低价值减酸药处方:患者教育干预措施的影响","authors":"Joris L. J. M. Müskens, Simone A. van Dulmen, Karin Hek, Gert P. Westert, Rudolf B. Kool","doi":"10.1186/s12875-024-02351-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Dyspepsia is a commonly encountered clinical condition in Dutch general practice, which is often treated through the prescription of acid-reducing medication (ARM). However, recent studies indicate that the majority of chronic ARM users lack an indication for their use and that their long-term use is associated with adverse outcomes. We developed a patient-focussed educational intervention aiming to reduce low-value (chronic) use of ARM. We conducted a randomized controlled study, and evaluated its effect on the low-value chronic prescription of ARM using data from a subset (n = 26) of practices from the Nivel Primary Care Database. The intervention involved distributing an educational waiting room posters and flyers informing both patients and general practitioners (GPs) regarding the appropriate indications for prescription of an ARM for dyspepsia, which also referred to an online decision aid. The interventions’ effect was evaluated through calculation of the odds ratio of a patient receiving a low-value chronic ARM prescription over the second half of 2021 and 2022 (i.e. pre-intervention vs. post-intervention). In both the control and intervention groups, the proportion of patients receiving chronic low-value ARM prescriptions slightly increased. In the control group, it decreased from 50.3% in 2021 to 49.7% in 2022, and in the intervention group it increased from 51.3% in 2021 to 53.1% in 2022. Subsequent statistical analysis revealed no significant difference in low-value chronic prescriptions between the control and intervention groups (Odds ratio: 1.11 [0.84–1.47], p > 0.05). Our educational intervention did not result in a change in the low-value chronic prescription of ARM; approximately half of the patients of the intervention and control still received low-value chronic ARM prescriptions. The absence of effect might be explained by selection bias of participating practices, awareness on the topic of chronic AMR prescriptions and the relative low proportion of low-value chronic ARM prescribing in the intervention as well as the control group compared to an assessment conducted two years prior. 10/31/2023 NCT06108817.","PeriodicalId":9019,"journal":{"name":"BMC Family Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Low-value chronic prescription of acid reducing medication among Dutch general practitioners: impact of a patient education intervention\",\"authors\":\"Joris L. J. M. Müskens, Simone A. van Dulmen, Karin Hek, Gert P. Westert, Rudolf B. Kool\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12875-024-02351-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Dyspepsia is a commonly encountered clinical condition in Dutch general practice, which is often treated through the prescription of acid-reducing medication (ARM). However, recent studies indicate that the majority of chronic ARM users lack an indication for their use and that their long-term use is associated with adverse outcomes. We developed a patient-focussed educational intervention aiming to reduce low-value (chronic) use of ARM. We conducted a randomized controlled study, and evaluated its effect on the low-value chronic prescription of ARM using data from a subset (n = 26) of practices from the Nivel Primary Care Database. The intervention involved distributing an educational waiting room posters and flyers informing both patients and general practitioners (GPs) regarding the appropriate indications for prescription of an ARM for dyspepsia, which also referred to an online decision aid. The interventions’ effect was evaluated through calculation of the odds ratio of a patient receiving a low-value chronic ARM prescription over the second half of 2021 and 2022 (i.e. pre-intervention vs. post-intervention). In both the control and intervention groups, the proportion of patients receiving chronic low-value ARM prescriptions slightly increased. In the control group, it decreased from 50.3% in 2021 to 49.7% in 2022, and in the intervention group it increased from 51.3% in 2021 to 53.1% in 2022. Subsequent statistical analysis revealed no significant difference in low-value chronic prescriptions between the control and intervention groups (Odds ratio: 1.11 [0.84–1.47], p > 0.05). Our educational intervention did not result in a change in the low-value chronic prescription of ARM; approximately half of the patients of the intervention and control still received low-value chronic ARM prescriptions. The absence of effect might be explained by selection bias of participating practices, awareness on the topic of chronic AMR prescriptions and the relative low proportion of low-value chronic ARM prescribing in the intervention as well as the control group compared to an assessment conducted two years prior. 10/31/2023 NCT06108817.\",\"PeriodicalId\":9019,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Family Practice\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Family Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-024-02351-2\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Family Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-024-02351-2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

消化不良是荷兰全科医生经常遇到的一种临床症状,通常通过处方降酸药(ARM)来治疗。然而,最近的研究表明,大多数减酸药的长期使用者缺乏使用指征,而且长期使用减酸药与不良后果相关。我们开发了一种以患者为中心的教育干预措施,旨在减少 ARM 的低价值(慢性)使用。我们开展了一项随机对照研究,并利用来自 Nivel 初级医疗数据库的一个实践子集(n = 26)的数据,评估了该干预措施对低价值慢性处方 ARM 的影响。干预措施包括在候诊室分发教育海报和传单,告知患者和全科医生(GPs)有关消化不良 ARM 处方的适当适应症,其中还提到了在线决策辅助工具。干预效果通过计算 2021 年下半年和 2022 年(即干预前与干预后)患者获得低价值慢性 ARM 处方的几率来评估。在对照组和干预组中,接受低价值 ARM 慢性处方的患者比例都略有上升。对照组的比例从 2021 年的 50.3% 下降到 2022 年的 49.7%,而干预组的比例则从 2021 年的 51.3% 上升到 2022 年的 53.1%。随后的统计分析显示,对照组和干预组在低价值慢性处方方面没有明显差异(比值比:1.11 [0.84-1.47],P > 0.05)。我们的教育干预并没有改变 ARM 的低价值慢性处方;干预组和对照组中约有一半的患者仍在接受低价值的 ARM 慢性处方。没有效果的原因可能是参与实践的选择偏差、对AMR慢性处方主题的认识,以及与两年前进行的评估相比,干预组和对照组中低价值的ARM慢性处方比例相对较低。10/31/2023 NCT06108817。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Low-value chronic prescription of acid reducing medication among Dutch general practitioners: impact of a patient education intervention
Dyspepsia is a commonly encountered clinical condition in Dutch general practice, which is often treated through the prescription of acid-reducing medication (ARM). However, recent studies indicate that the majority of chronic ARM users lack an indication for their use and that their long-term use is associated with adverse outcomes. We developed a patient-focussed educational intervention aiming to reduce low-value (chronic) use of ARM. We conducted a randomized controlled study, and evaluated its effect on the low-value chronic prescription of ARM using data from a subset (n = 26) of practices from the Nivel Primary Care Database. The intervention involved distributing an educational waiting room posters and flyers informing both patients and general practitioners (GPs) regarding the appropriate indications for prescription of an ARM for dyspepsia, which also referred to an online decision aid. The interventions’ effect was evaluated through calculation of the odds ratio of a patient receiving a low-value chronic ARM prescription over the second half of 2021 and 2022 (i.e. pre-intervention vs. post-intervention). In both the control and intervention groups, the proportion of patients receiving chronic low-value ARM prescriptions slightly increased. In the control group, it decreased from 50.3% in 2021 to 49.7% in 2022, and in the intervention group it increased from 51.3% in 2021 to 53.1% in 2022. Subsequent statistical analysis revealed no significant difference in low-value chronic prescriptions between the control and intervention groups (Odds ratio: 1.11 [0.84–1.47], p > 0.05). Our educational intervention did not result in a change in the low-value chronic prescription of ARM; approximately half of the patients of the intervention and control still received low-value chronic ARM prescriptions. The absence of effect might be explained by selection bias of participating practices, awareness on the topic of chronic AMR prescriptions and the relative low proportion of low-value chronic ARM prescribing in the intervention as well as the control group compared to an assessment conducted two years prior. 10/31/2023 NCT06108817.
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
BMC Family Practice
BMC Family Practice 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Family Practice is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of primary health care research. The journal has a special focus on clinical decision making and management, continuing professional education, service utilization, needs and demand, and the organization and delivery of primary care and care in the community.
×
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