Randomised controlled trial of effect of feedback on general practitioners' prescribing in Australia

Dianne L. O'Connell, David Henry, Ron Tomlins

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

109 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective. To evaluate the effect on general practitioners' prescribing of feedback on their levels of prescribing. Design. Randomised controlled trial. Setting. General practice in rural Australia. Participants. 2440 full time recognised general practitioners practising in non-urban areas. Intervention. Two sets of graphical displays (6 months apart) of their prescribing rates for 2 years, relative to those of their peers, were posted to participants. Data were provided for five main drug groups and were accompanied by educational newsletters. The control group received no information on their prescribing. Main outcome measures. Prescribing rates in the intervention and control groups for the five main drug groups, total prescribing and potential substitute prescribing and ordering before and after the interventions. Results. The intervention and control groups had similar baseline characteristics (age, sex, patient mix, practices). Median prescribing rates for the two groups were almost identical before and after the interventions. Any changes in prescribing observed in the intervention group were also seen in the control group. There was no evidence that feedback reduced the variability in prescribing nor did it differentially affect the very high or very low prescribers. Conclusions. The form of feedback evaluated here - mailed, unsolicited, centralised, government sponsored, and based on aggregate data - had no impact on the prescribing levels of general practitioners.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)507-511
Number of pages5
JournalBritish Medical Journal
Volume318
Issue number7182
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 20 Feb 1999
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

General Practitioners
Randomized Controlled Trials
Control Groups
Sex Characteristics
General Practice
Pharmaceutical Preparations
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)

Cite this

@article{91775b21fd8040e0b913f408dc3c2231,
title = "Randomised controlled trial of effect of feedback on general practitioners' prescribing in Australia",
abstract = "Objective. To evaluate the effect on general practitioners' prescribing of feedback on their levels of prescribing. Design. Randomised controlled trial. Setting. General practice in rural Australia. Participants. 2440 full time recognised general practitioners practising in non-urban areas. Intervention. Two sets of graphical displays (6 months apart) of their prescribing rates for 2 years, relative to those of their peers, were posted to participants. Data were provided for five main drug groups and were accompanied by educational newsletters. The control group received no information on their prescribing. Main outcome measures. Prescribing rates in the intervention and control groups for the five main drug groups, total prescribing and potential substitute prescribing and ordering before and after the interventions. Results. The intervention and control groups had similar baseline characteristics (age, sex, patient mix, practices). Median prescribing rates for the two groups were almost identical before and after the interventions. Any changes in prescribing observed in the intervention group were also seen in the control group. There was no evidence that feedback reduced the variability in prescribing nor did it differentially affect the very high or very low prescribers. Conclusions. The form of feedback evaluated here - mailed, unsolicited, centralised, government sponsored, and based on aggregate data - had no impact on the prescribing levels of general practitioners.",
author = "O'Connell, {Dianne L.} and David Henry and Ron Tomlins",
year = "1999",
month = "2",
day = "20",
doi = "10.1136/bmj.318.7182.507",
language = "English",
volume = "318",
pages = "507--511",
journal = "BMJ (Clinical research ed.)",
issn = "0959-535X",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "7182",

}

Randomised controlled trial of effect of feedback on general practitioners' prescribing in Australia. / O'Connell, Dianne L.; Henry, David; Tomlins, Ron.

In: British Medical Journal, Vol. 318, No. 7182, 20.02.1999, p. 507-511.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Randomised controlled trial of effect of feedback on general practitioners' prescribing in Australia

AU - O'Connell, Dianne L.

AU - Henry, David

AU - Tomlins, Ron

PY - 1999/2/20

Y1 - 1999/2/20

N2 - Objective. To evaluate the effect on general practitioners' prescribing of feedback on their levels of prescribing. Design. Randomised controlled trial. Setting. General practice in rural Australia. Participants. 2440 full time recognised general practitioners practising in non-urban areas. Intervention. Two sets of graphical displays (6 months apart) of their prescribing rates for 2 years, relative to those of their peers, were posted to participants. Data were provided for five main drug groups and were accompanied by educational newsletters. The control group received no information on their prescribing. Main outcome measures. Prescribing rates in the intervention and control groups for the five main drug groups, total prescribing and potential substitute prescribing and ordering before and after the interventions. Results. The intervention and control groups had similar baseline characteristics (age, sex, patient mix, practices). Median prescribing rates for the two groups were almost identical before and after the interventions. Any changes in prescribing observed in the intervention group were also seen in the control group. There was no evidence that feedback reduced the variability in prescribing nor did it differentially affect the very high or very low prescribers. Conclusions. The form of feedback evaluated here - mailed, unsolicited, centralised, government sponsored, and based on aggregate data - had no impact on the prescribing levels of general practitioners.

AB - Objective. To evaluate the effect on general practitioners' prescribing of feedback on their levels of prescribing. Design. Randomised controlled trial. Setting. General practice in rural Australia. Participants. 2440 full time recognised general practitioners practising in non-urban areas. Intervention. Two sets of graphical displays (6 months apart) of their prescribing rates for 2 years, relative to those of their peers, were posted to participants. Data were provided for five main drug groups and were accompanied by educational newsletters. The control group received no information on their prescribing. Main outcome measures. Prescribing rates in the intervention and control groups for the five main drug groups, total prescribing and potential substitute prescribing and ordering before and after the interventions. Results. The intervention and control groups had similar baseline characteristics (age, sex, patient mix, practices). Median prescribing rates for the two groups were almost identical before and after the interventions. Any changes in prescribing observed in the intervention group were also seen in the control group. There was no evidence that feedback reduced the variability in prescribing nor did it differentially affect the very high or very low prescribers. Conclusions. The form of feedback evaluated here - mailed, unsolicited, centralised, government sponsored, and based on aggregate data - had no impact on the prescribing levels of general practitioners.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0033585854&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1136/bmj.318.7182.507

DO - 10.1136/bmj.318.7182.507

M3 - Article

VL - 318

SP - 507

EP - 511

JO - BMJ (Clinical research ed.)

JF - BMJ (Clinical research ed.)

SN - 0959-535X

IS - 7182

ER -