ArticleHealth services insights2025
Prescribing Vitamin-K-Antagonists Versus Direct Oral Anticoagulants Among Bavarian General Practitioners: A Qualitative Study.
Article in Health services insights, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been increasingly prescribed instead of vitamin-K-antagonists (VKA) although VKAs cost considerably less than DOACs. In 2014, a new system for drug expenditures, the Wirkstoffvereinbarung (WSV, Active substance agreement), was implemented in Bavaria, Germany to control pharmaceutical expenditures transparently. Achieving the targets for the VKAs set by the WSV was difficult for general practitioners (GPs). We explored the determinants of prescribing VKAs (specifically phenprocoumon) versus DOACs. Methods: Qualitative interviews (n = 18) and two small group discussions (n = 10) were conducted with GPs. For the qualitative content analysis, we formed a system of categories based on the domains of the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Results: Participants actively weighed various factors when deciding between prescribing phenprocoumon or DOACs. Costs played a subordinate role although all participants were aware that DOACs come at a higher cost than phenprocoumon. Trend reports served as a tool for GPs to assess their prescribing practices, however did not lead to a change in prescribing behaviour. The interviewees had a very heterogeneous view of safety, effect, and evidence of phenprocoumon or DOACs. The cooperation of the patients is crucial. Time is a significant challenge for participants when initiating patients on or switching them to phenprocoumon, which is especially problematic as all of the patients discharged from the hospital are put on DOACs. Conclusions: GPs are caught between economic requirements, patients' wishes, and good collegial cooperation when deciding for or against phenprocoumon. As oral anticoagulant therapy (OAC) is mostly initiated in the hospital, and as physicians almost exclusively prescribe DOACs there, participating GPs feel overchallenged in reaching the targets set by the WSV. Trial registration number: Main ID: DRKS00019820 (German Register of Clinical Studies and World Health Organization).
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.