ArticleEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2017
Effects of a primary care intervention to improve the quality of zolpidem prescriptions in elderly patients.
Article in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reducing prescribing of benzodiazepines in older adults: a comparison of four physician-focused interventions by a medical regulatory authority.BMC family practice · 2021Trial
- Information provision and financial incentives in Catalonia's public primary care (2010-2019): an interrupted time series analysis.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe objective of this study was to measure the impact of an intervention on the prescription habits of general practitioners (GPs) in order to improve the quality of zolpidem prescriptions in patients aged 75 or older.
methodsA prospective multicentric non-randomized trial was performed in the Metropolitan Granada Primary Healthcare Area (Andalusian Public Healthcare Service, Spain), which serves a total population of approximately 675,000 inhabitants. All health centers volunteering to participate in the trial were included. The intervention consisted of training sessions, individualized feedback, clinical information, and financial incentives. A daily dose over 5 mg was considered non-safe. Reduction in non-safe prescriptions of zolpidem in the elderly population became a quality prescribing indicator in a pay-for-performance scheme.
resultsStatistically significant differences versus baseline were found between the intervention and control groups in mean zolpidem prescription prevalence (28.5 vs. 37.5‰, respectively; p = 0.008) and mean non-safe zolpidem prescription prevalence (16.5 vs. 34.2‰, respectively; p < 0.001). At the end of the study period, the total number of non-safe prescriptions was 1309, 35% lower versus baseline, with a significant difference of p < 0.001; the number in the intervention (510 vs. 1118; p < 0.001) and control (799 vs. 893; p = 0.0064) groups was also significantly lower, with a significantly greater percentage reduction in the intervention group (54.4 vs. 10.5%, p < 0.001).
conclusionThe quality prescribing indicator in our area was improved by the intervention developed. Further studies that include an intervention group of GPs who receive no financial incentive are required to evaluate the relative importance of an economic reward in achieving this improvement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.