Intervention against long-term use of hypnotics/sedatives in general practice

Effects of an academic detailing service on benzodiazepine prescribing patterns in primary care

BACKGROUND

Benzodiazepines are commonly used to treat anxiety and/or insomnia but are associated with substantial safety risks. Changes to prescribing patterns in primary care may be facilitated through tailored quality improvement strategies. Academic detailing (AD) may be an effective method of promoting safe benzodiazepine prescribing. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of AD on benzodiazepine prescribing among family physicians.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We used an interrupted time series matched cohort design using population-based administrative claims databases. Participants were family physicians practicing in Ontario, Canada. The intervention was a voluntary AD service which involves brief service-oriented educational outreach visits by a trained pharmacist. The focus was on key messages for safer benzodiazepine prescribing in primary care with an emphasis on judicious prescribing to older adults aged 65 and older. Physicians in the intervention group were those who received at least one AD visit on benzodiazepine use between June 2019 and February 2020. Physicians in the control group were included if they did not receive an AD visit during the study period. Intervention physicians were matched to control physicians 1:4, on a variety of characteristics. Physicians were excluded if they had inactive billing or billing of less than 100 unique patient visits in the calendar year prior to the index date. The primary outcome was mean total benzodiazepine prescriptions at the level of the physician. Secondary outcomes were rate (per 100) of patients with long-term prescriptions, high-risk prescriptions, newly started prescriptions, and benzodiazepine-related patient harms. Data were analyzed using a repeated measures pre-post comparison with an intention-to-treat. Analyses were then stratified to focus on effects within higher-prescribing physicians. There were 1337 physicians were included in the study; 237 who received AD and 1064 who did not. There was no significant change in benzodiazepine prescribing when considering all physicians in the intervention and matched control groups. Although not significant, a greater reduction in total benzodiazepine prescriptions was observed amongst the highest-volume prescribing physicians who received the intervention (% change in slope = -0.53, 95%CI = -2.34 to 1.30, p > .05). The main limitation of our study was the voluntary nature of the AD intervention, which may have introduced a self-selection bias of physicians most open to changing their prescribing.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that future AD interventions should focus on physicians with the greatest room for improvement to their prescribing.

Evaluation of a multicomponent intervention consisting of education and feedback to reduce benzodiazepine prescriptions by general practitioners: The BENZORED hybrid type 1 cluster randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Current benzodiazepine (BZD) prescription guidelines recommend short-term use to minimize the risk of dependence, cognitive impairment, and falls and fractures. However, many clinicians overprescribe BZDs and chronic use by patients is common. There is limited evidence on the effectiveness of interventions delivered by general practitioners (GPs) on reducing prescriptions and long-term use of BZDs. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a multicomponent intervention for GPs that seeks to reduce BZD prescriptions and the prevalence of long-term users.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We conducted a multicenter two-arm, cluster randomized controlled trial in 3 health districts in Spain (primary health centers [PHCs] in Balearic Islands, Catalonia, and Valencian Community) from September 2016 to May 2018. The 81 PHCs were randomly allocated to the intervention group (n = 41; 372 GPs) or the control group (n = 40; 377 GPs). GPs were not blinded to the allocation; however, pharmacists, researchers, and trial statisticians were blinded to the allocation arm. The intervention consisted of a workshop about the appropriate prescribing of BZDs and tapering-off long-term BZD use using a tailored stepped dose reduction with monthly BZD prescription feedback and access to a support web page. The primary outcome, based on 700 GPs (351 in the control group and 349 in the intervention group), compared changes in BZD prescriptions in defined daily doses (DDDs) per 1,000 inhabitants per day after 12 months. The 2 secondary outcomes were the proportion of long-term users (≥6 months) and the proportion of long-term users over age 65 years. Intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis was used to assess all clinical outcomes. Forty-nine GPs (21 intervention group and 28 control group) were lost to follow-up. However, all GPs were included in the ITT analysis. After 12 months, there were a statistically significant decline in total BZD prescription in the intervention group compared to the control group (mean difference: -3.24 DDDs per 1,000 inhabitants per day, 95% confidence interval (CI): -4.96, -1.53, p < 0.001). The intervention group also had a smaller number of long-term users. The adjusted absolute difference overall was -0.36 (95% CI: -0.55, -0.16, p > 0.001), and the adjusted absolute difference in long-term users over age 65 years was -0.87 (95% CI: -1.44, -0.30, p = 0.003). A key limitation of this clustered design clinical trial is the imbalance of some baseline characteristics. The control groups have a higher rate of baseline BZD prescription, and more GPs in the intervention group were women, GPs with a doctorate degree, and trainers of GP residents.

CONCLUSIONS

A multicomponent intervention that targeted GPs and included educational meeting, feedback about BZD prescriptions, and a support web page led to a statistically significant reduction of BZD prescriptions and fewer long-term users. Although the effect size was small, the high prevalence of BZD use in the general population suggests that large-scale implementation of this intervention could have positive effects on the health of many patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN ISRCTN28272199.

A systematic review of regulatory and educational interventions to reduce the burden associated with the prescriptions of sedative-hypnotics in adults treated for sleep disorders

BACKGROUND

The burden of Sedative-Hypnotics (SHs) has been known since the 1980s. Yet, their consumption remains high. A systematic review of the literature should help to assess efficient interventions to improve the appropriate use of SHs in sleep disorders.

OBJECTIVES

To identify and assess regulatory and educational interventions designed to improve the appropriate use of SHs for insomnia treatment.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of the literature according to PRISMA guidelines. A systematic search covering the period 1980-2015 was carried out in Medline, Web of Science, Embase and PsycInfo. We included studies reporting the implementation of regulatory or educational strategies directed towards patients and/or healthcare professionals to improve the appropriate use of SHs to treat insomnia in the community, hospitals and nursing homes.

RESULTS

Thirty-one studies were included: 23 assessed educational interventions (recommendations by mail/email, computer alerts, meetings, mass media campaigns, prescription profile), 8 assessed regulatory interventions (prescription rule restriction, end of reimbursement). The most recent was implemented in 2009. Restrictive prescription rules were effective to reduce the consumption of targeted SHs but led to a switch to other non-recommended SHs. Among educational interventions, only 3 studies out of 7 reported positive results of mono-faceted interventions; whereas, 13 out of the 16 multi-faceted interventions were reported as efficient: particularly, the active involvement of healthcare professionals and patients and the spread of information through mass media were successful. The risk of bias was high for 24 studies (mainly due to the design), moderate for 3 studies and weak for 4 studies.

CONCLUSION

Educational multifaceted studies are presented as the most efficient. But further better designed studies are needed to make evidence-based results more generalizable.

Data feedback and behavioural change intervention to improve primary care prescribing safety (EFIPPS): multicentre, three arm, cluster randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

 To evaluate the effectiveness of feedback on safety of prescribing compared with moderately enhanced usual care.

DESIGN

 Three arm, highly pragmatic cluster randomised trial.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

 262/278 (94%) primary care practices in three Scottish health boards.

INTERVENTIONS

 Practices were randomised to: "usual care," consisting of emailed educational material with support for searching to identify patients (88 practices at baseline, 86 analysed); usual care plus feedback on practice's high risk prescribing sent quarterly on five occasions (87 practices, 86 analysed); or usual care plus the same feedback incorporating a behavioural change component (87 practices, 86 analysed).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

 The primary outcome was a patient level composite of six prescribing measures relating to high risk use of antipsychotics, non-steroidal anti-inflammatories, and antiplatelets. Secondary outcomes were the six individual measures. The primary analysis compared high risk prescribing in the two feedback arms against usual care at 15 months. Secondary analyses examined immediate change and change in trend of high risk prescribing associated with implementation of the intervention within each arm.

RESULTS

 In the primary analysis, high risk prescribing as measured by the primary outcome fell from 6.0% (3332/55 896) to 5.1% (2845/55 872) in the usual care arm, compared with 5.9% (3341/56 194) to 4.6% (2587/56 478) in the feedback only arm (odds ratio 0.88 (95% confidence interval 0.80 to 0.96) compared with usual care; P=0.007) and 6.2% (3634/58 569) to 4.6% (2686/58 582) in the feedback plus behavioural change component arm (0.86 (0.78 to 0.95); P=0.002). In the pre-specified secondary analysis of change in trend within each arm, the usual care educational intervention had no effect on the existing declining trend in high risk prescribing. Both types of feedback were associated with significantly more rapid decline in high risk prescribing after the intervention compared with before.

CONCLUSIONS

 Feedback of prescribing safety data was effective at reducing high risk prescribing. The intervention would be feasible to implement at scale in contexts where electronic health records are in general use.Trial registration Clinical trials NCT01602705.

Measuring prevalence, reliability and variation in high-risk prescribing in general practice using multilevel modelling of observational data in a population database

Background

High-risk primary care prescribing is common and is known to vary considerably between practices, but the extent to which high-risk prescribing varies among individual general practitioners (GPs) is not known.

Objectives

To create prescribing safety indicators usable in existing electronic clinical data and to examine (1) variation in high-risk prescribing between patients, GPs and practices including reliability of measurement and (2) changes over time in high-risk prescribing prevalence and variation between practices.

Design

Descriptive analysis and multilevel logistic regression modelling of routine data.

Setting

UK general practice using routine electronic medical record data.

Participants

(1) For analysis of variation and reliability, 398 GPs and 26,539 patients in 38 Scottish practices. (2) For analysis of change in high-risk prescribing, ≈ 300,000 patients particularly vulnerable to adverse drug effects registered with 190 Scottish practices.

Main outcome measures

For the analysis of variation between practices and between GPs, five indicators of high-risk non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) prescribing. For the analysis of change in high-risk prescribing, 19 previously validated indicators.

Results

Measurement of high-risk prescribing at GP level was feasible only for newly initiated drugs and for drugs similar to NSAIDs which are usually initiated by GPs. There was moderate variation between practices in total high-risk NSAID prescribing [intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) 0.034], but this indicator was highly reliable (> 0.8 for all practices) at distinguishing between practices because of the large number of patients being measured. There was moderate variation in initiation of high-risk NSAID prescribing between practices (ICC 0.055) and larger variation between GPs (ICC 0.166), but measurement did not reliably distinguish between practices and had reliability > 0.7 for only half of the GPs in the study. Between quarter (Q)2 2004 and Q1 2009, the percentage of patients exposed to high-risk prescribing measured by 17 indicators that could be examined over the whole period fell from 8.5% to 5.2%, which was largely driven by reductions in high-risk NSAID and antiplatelet use. Variation between practices increased for five indicators and decreased for five, with no relationship between change in the rate of high-risk prescribing and change in variation between practices.

Conclusions

High-risk prescribing is common and varies moderately between practices. High-risk prescribing at GP level cannot be easily measured routinely because of the difficulties in accurately identifying which GP actually prescribed the drug and because drug initiation is often a shared responsibility with specialists. For NSAID initiation, there was approximately three times greater variation between GPs than between practices. Most GPs with above average high-risk prescribing worked in practices which were not themselves above average. The observed reductions in high-risk prescribing between 2004 and 2009 were largely driven by falls in NSAID and antiplatelet prescribing, and there was no relationship between change in rate and change in variation between practices. These results are consistent with improvement interventions in all practices being more appropriate than interventions targeted on practices or GPs with higher than average high-risk prescribing. There is a need for research to understand why high-risk prescribing varies and to design and evaluate interventions to reduce it.

Funding

Funding for this study was provided by the Health Services and Delivery Research programme of the National Institute for Health Research.

Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes

BACKGROUND

Audit and feedback is widely used as a strategy to improve professional practice either on its own or as a component of multifaceted quality improvement interventions. This is based on the belief that healthcare professionals are prompted to modify their practice when given performance feedback showing that their clinical practice is inconsistent with a desirable target. Despite its prevalence as a quality improvement strategy, there remains uncertainty regarding both the effectiveness of audit and feedback in improving healthcare practice and the characteristics of audit and feedback that lead to greater impact.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of audit and feedback on the practice of healthcare professionals and patient outcomes and to examine factors that may explain variation in the effectiveness of audit and feedback.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) 2010, Issue 4, part of The Cochrane Library. www.thecochranelibrary.com, including the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group Specialised Register (searched 10 December 2010); MEDLINE, Ovid (1950 to November Week 3 2010) (searched 09 December 2010); EMBASE, Ovid (1980 to 2010 Week 48) (searched 09 December 2010); CINAHL, Ebsco (1981 to present) (searched 10 December 2010); Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index, ISI Web of Science (1975 to present) (searched 12-15 September 2011).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials of audit and feedback (defined as a summary of clinical performance over a specified period of time) that reported objectively measured health professional practice or patient outcomes. In the case of multifaceted interventions, only trials in which audit and feedback was considered the core, essential aspect of at least one intervention arm were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

All data were abstracted by two independent review authors. For the primary outcome(s) in each study, we calculated the median absolute risk difference (RD) (adjusted for baseline performance) of compliance with desired practice compliance for dichotomous outcomes and the median percent change relative to the control group for continuous outcomes. Across studies the median effect size was weighted by number of health professionals involved in each study. We investigated the following factors as possible explanations for the variation in the effectiveness of interventions across comparisons: format of feedback, source of feedback, frequency of feedback, instructions for improvement, direction of change required, baseline performance, profession of recipient, and risk of bias within the trial itself. We also conducted exploratory analyses to assess the role of context and the targeted clinical behaviour. Quantitative (meta-regression), visual, and qualitative analyses were undertaken to examine variation in effect size related to these factors.

MAIN RESULTS

We included and analysed 140 studies for this review. In the main analyses, a total of 108 comparisons from 70 studies compared any intervention in which audit and feedback was a core, essential component to usual care and evaluated effects on professional practice. After excluding studies at high risk of bias, there were 82 comparisons from 49 studies featuring dichotomous outcomes, and the weighted median adjusted RD was a 4.3% (interquartile range (IQR) 0.5% to 16%) absolute increase in healthcare professionals' compliance with desired practice. Across 26 comparisons from 21 studies with continuous outcomes, the weighted median adjusted percent change relative to control was 1.3% (IQR = 1.3% to 28.9%). For patient outcomes, the weighted median RD was -0.4% (IQR -1.3% to 1.6%) for 12 comparisons from six studies reporting dichotomous outcomes and the weighted median percentage change was 17% (IQR 1.5% to 17%) for eight comparisons from five studies reporting continuous outcomes. Multivariable meta-regression indicated that feedback may be more effective when baseline performance is low, the source is a supervisor or colleague, it is provided more than once, it is delivered in both verbal and written formats, and when it includes both explicit targets and an action plan. In addition, the effect size varied based on the clinical behaviour targeted by the intervention.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Audit and feedback generally leads to small but potentially important improvements in professional practice. The effectiveness of audit and feedback seems to depend on baseline performance and how the feedback is provided. Future studies of audit and feedback should directly compare different ways of providing feedback.

Improving the use of benzodiazepines--is it possible? A non-systematic review of interventions tried in the last 20 years

Background

Benzodiazepines are often used on a long term basis in the elderly to treat various psychological disorders including sleep disorders, some neurological disorders and anxiety. This is despite the risk of dependence, cognitive impairment, and falls and fractures. Guidelines, campaigns and prescribing restrictions have been used to raise awareness of potentially inappropriate use, however long term use of benzodiazepine and related compounds is currently increasing in Australia and worldwide. The objective of this paper is to explore interventions aimed at improving the prescribing and use of benzodiazepines in the last 20 years.

Methods

Medline, EMBASE, PsychINFO, IPA were searched for the period 1987 to June 2007.

Results

Thirty-two articles met the study eligibility criteria (interventions solely focusing on increasing appropriate prescribing and reducing long term use of benzodiazepines) and were appraised. Insufficient data were presented in these studies for systematic data aggregation and synthesis, hence critical appraisal was used to tabulate the studies and draw empirical conclusions. Three major intervention approaches were identified; education, audit and feedback, and alerts.

Conclusions

Studies which used a multi-faceted approach had the largest and most sustained reductions in benzodiazepines use. It appears that support groups for patients, non-voluntary recruitment of GPs, and oral delivery of alerts or feedback may all improve the outcomes of interventions. The choice of outcome measures, delivery style of educational messages, and requests by GPs to stop benzodiazepines, either in a letter or face to face, showed no differences on the success rates of the intervention.

Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes

BACKGROUND

Audit and feedback continues to be widely used as a strategy to improve professional practice. It appears logical that healthcare professionals would be prompted to modify their practice if given feedback that their clinical practice was inconsistent with that of their peers or accepted guidelines. Yet, audit and feedback has not consistently been found to be effective.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of audit and feedback on the practice of healthcare professionals and patient outcomes.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group's register and pending file up to January 2004.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials of audit and feedback (defined as any summary of clinical performance over a specified period of time) that reported objectively measured professional practice in a healthcare setting or healthcare outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality. Quantitative (meta-regression), visual and qualitative analyses were undertaken. For each comparison we calculated the risk difference (RD) and risk ratio (RR), adjusted for baseline compliance when possible, for dichotomous outcomes and the percentage and the percent change relative to the control group average after the intervention, adjusted for baseline performance when possible, for continuous outcomes. We investigated the following factors as possible explanations for the variation in the effectiveness of interventions across comparisons: the type of intervention (audit and feedback alone, audit and feedback with educational meetings, or multifaceted interventions that included audit and feedback), the intensity of the audit and feedback, the complexity of the targeted behaviour, the seriousness of the outcome, baseline compliance and study quality.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty new studies were added to this update, and a total of 118 studies are included. In the primary analysis 88 comparisons from 72 studies were included that compared any intervention in which audit and feedback is a component compared to no intervention. For dichotomous outcomes the adjusted risk difference of compliance with desired practice varied from - 0.16 (a 16 % absolute decrease in compliance) to 0.70 (a 70% increase in compliance) (median = 0.05, inter-quartile range = 0.03 to 0.11) and the adjusted risk ratio varied from 0.71 to 18.3 (median = 1.08, inter-quartile range = 0.99 to 1.30). For continuous outcomes the adjusted percent change relative to control varied from -0.10 (a 10 % absolute decrease in compliance) to 0.68 (a 68% increase in compliance) (median = 0.16, inter-quartile range = 0.05 to 0.37). Low baseline compliance with recommended practice and higher intensity of audit and feedback were associated with larger adjusted risk ratios (greater effectiveness) across studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Audit and feedback can be effective in improving professional practice. When it is effective, the effects are generally small to moderate. The relative effectiveness of audit and feedback is likely to be greater when baseline adherence to recommended practice is low and when feedback is delivered more intensively.

Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes

BACKGROUND

Audit and feedback continues to be widely used as a strategy to improve professional practice. It appears logical that healthcare professionals would be prompted to modify their practice if given feedback that their clinical practice was inconsistent with that of their peers or accepted guidelines. Yet, audit and feedback has not been found to be consistently effective.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of audit and feedback on the practice of healthcare professionals and patient outcomes.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group's register up to January 2001. This was supplemented with searches of MEDLINE and reference lists, which did not yield additional relevant studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials of audit and feedback (defined as any summary of clinical performance over a specified period of time) that reported objectively measured professional practice in a healthcare setting or healthcare outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality. Quantitative (meta-regression), visual and qualitative analyses were undertaken.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 85 studies, 48 of which have been added to the previous version of this review. There were 52 comparisons of dichotomous outcomes from 47 trials with over 3500 health professionals that compared audit and feedback to no intervention. The adjusted RDs of non-compliance with desired practice varied from 0.09 (a 9% absolute increase in non-compliance) to 0.71 (a 71% decrease in non-compliance) (median = 0.07, inter-quartile range = 0.02 to 0.11). The one factor that appeared to predict the effectiveness of audit and feedback across studies was baseline non-compliance with recommended practice.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Audit and feedback can be effective in improving professional practice. When it is effective, the effects are generally small to moderate. The absolute effects of audit and feedback are more likely to be larger when baseline adherence to recommended practice is low.

Effectiveness of educational interventions on the improvement of drug prescription in primary care: a critical literature review

This paper is a critical review of studies of educational programmes designed to improve prescription practices in ambulatory care. Scientific articles were selected from the following bibliographical indices: MEDLINE, IME, ICYT and ERIC. The searches covered the time period between 1988 and 1997. The search criteria included: primary-care, educat*, prescription* and other related keywords. The inclusion criteria were studies describing educational strategies aimed at general practitioners working in ambulatory settings. The study outcome was change in prescribing behaviour of physicians through prescribing indicators. The following data were extracted: study design, target drugs, type of intervention, follow-up period of the prescription trends, type of data analysis, type of statistical analysis and reported results. We found 3233 articles that met the search criteria. Of these, 51 met the inclusion criteria and 43 studied the efficacy/effectiveness of one or various interventions as compared to no intervention. Among seven studies evaluating active strategies, four reported positive results (57%), as opposed to three of the eight studies assessing passive strategies (38%). Among the 28 studies that tested reinforced active strategies, 16 reported positive results for all variables (57%). Eight studies were classified as a high degree of evidence (16%). We concluded that the results of our review suggest that the more personalized, the more effective the strategies are. We observe that combining active and passive strategies results in a decrease of the failure rate. Finally, better studies are still needed to enhance the efficacy and efficiency of prescribing practices.

Patients' knowledge and attitudes regarding sleep and hypnotics

OBJECTIVE

To examine attitudes, opinions and knowledge regarding hypnotics and their use, sleep and sleep requirements among patients who have used hypnotics.

DESIGN

A mailed questionnaire.

SETTING

A primary health care centre serving 18,500 inhabitants.

PATIENTS

143 randomly selected patients for whom hypnotics had been prescribed at the health care centre at any time during the year previous to the study.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Answers to 21 questions about sleep, sleep requirement, use and effect of hypnotics.

RESULTS

Regular use of hypnotics over long periods is common. Participants endure sleeping problems before beginning to use hypnotics. Once on pills most patients take hypnotics without first trying to fall asleep. Knowledge about sleeping hygiene was good and household remedies are much used. Feelings of guilt about using hypnotics were not common. Elderly people were less informed than younger about the effects and disadvantages of use of hypnotics.

CONCLUSION

Most patients are well informed about the benefits of hypnotics and possible abuse or addictive effects. Most begin using hypnotics after long-standing sleep problems and after trying various household remedies. Doctors have a lot of influence on patients' use of hypnotics and need to inform their patients well when hypnotics are first prescribed.

Can drug treatment be improved by feedback on prescribing profiles combined with therapeutic recommendations? A prospective, controlled trial in general practice

We have carried out a prospective, controlled trial to ascertain whether mailed feedback on general practitioners' (GPs) own prescribing combined with relevant recommendations on drug treatment, can improve the prescribing. The GPs in the Norwegian county of Møre and Romsdal recorded all their contacts with patients and prescriptions during two periods. After the first period the GPs in Romsdal only (intervention group) received a mailed report giving their prescribing profiles as well as treatment recommendations for insomnia and acute cystitis. The total number of contacts with patients was 68,625 in which 55,747 items were prescribed. The GPs in the intervention group changed their prescribing in accordance with the intervention: they prescribed significantly less sleeping-pills for each patient, preferred short- to long-acting benzodiazepine hypnotics and tranquilizers, and they chose trimethoprim as a first line treatment for acute cystitis. We conclude that it is possible to improve the GPs' prescribing through mailed feedback.

Social pharmacology: unresolved critical issues

This article describes and analyzes decision-making by patients, physicians, and drug information providers about registered medical drugs. Based on a cognitive psychology perspective, cognitive variables (the individual's mediating system) are assumed to be critical factors determining both patient and physician behavior. The individual's psychological functioning is seen as a continuous reciprocal interaction between behavioral, cognitive, and environmental influences; i.e., an interactional paradigm is applied. The importance of research models including cognitive and situation variables to guide the search for appropriate research methods is stressed. An intensive research strategy with a small sample of respondents will often be necessary. Also, respondents should be asked to describe their reactions to specific medical situations. The drug information sender has to select a set of goals for disseminating information to patients. Among the goals most often selected are: message comprehension, receiver satisfaction, changes in knowledge, attitudes, and drug behavior, as well as health effects. More research is needed on how the patient's mediating system, the actual situation, and the perceived situation steer his search for the use of new drug information. A different set of factors influence the patient's decision to start a medicinal or drug treatment than the factors that influence his decision to continue a treatment. The latter factors include forgetfulness, misunderstandings, and the patient's interpretation of physiological signs. More cognitive-oriented research about drug compliance must be undertaken. In such studies the mediating systems of a group of patients could be considered before and after intervention. There are a great number of types of inappropriate (irrational) prescribing. However, a physician may prescribe rationally in one area but irrationally in another. Face-to-face education of physicians has been shown to be effective in reducing inappropriate prescribing in a number of studies. "Overprescribing" of benzodiazepine has been an issue of intensive professional debate during the last decades. The two groups who criticize and defend the existing use of benzodiazepines build their views on different assumptions about the interaction between mind and brain as well as making different value assumptions regarding the use of a psychotropic drug. There is a need for prescription studies where a cognitive and interactional perspective is combined with an information-processing and a normative perspective. The benzodiazepines dependency problem has provoked lively discussion among professionals and the general public. Long-term benzodiazepine use and personality disorders increase the risk of the patient becoming dependent. A great number of research models have been suggested for the analysis of prescription drug dependency and as guides to the treatment of dependency.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Peer comparison feedback to achieve rational and economical drug therapy in general practice: a controlled intervention study

The aim of the study was to describe and evaluate a controlled intervention to achieve more rational and economical drug therapy in general practice. The strategy was based on peer comparison feedback and encouragement of local peer group discussions. Seven districts comprising 53, and 6 districts comprising 55 eligible practices constituted the intervention and control groups respectively. The process was evaluated by questionnaires to the GPs. 88% found the feedback diagrams relevant, and 74% expressed a wish for information about prescribing of particular drugs. The outcome evaluation was based on computerized registration of prescriptions. During the study period of 6 months the median costs per prescription increased significantly in the control group, whereas there was no statistically significant change in the intervention group. There were no significant effects on the prescribed amounts.