Biomedical subjects

Helen Prosser

Publications and source records attributed to Helen Prosser.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2005

New drug prescribing by hospital doctors: the nature and meaning of knowledge.

In the UK the high cost of new drugs is partly accountable for the growth in spending on prescription drugs. Most prescribing takes place in general practice and the influence of secondary care prescribing on primary care prescribing is well recognized; yet the factors that influence hospital prescribing have been little researched. Drawing on accounts of actual prescribing events from hospital doctors from a range of specialties, we investigated the processes by which new drugs come into practice, from hospital doctors' awareness of new drugs to the assimilation and interpretation of evidential sources. The determinants of new drug prescribing were interconnected within four forms of knowledge: scientific knowledge, social knowledge, patient knowledge and experiential knowledge. Furthermore, the nature of knowledge could only be understood within its situated context. The revelation of multiple and contingent forms of knowledge highlights the problematic nature of knowledge construction within the approaches of evidence-based medicine.

Diffusion of Innovation↗

PubMed2005

A qualitative study of GPs' and PCO stakeholders' views on the importance and influence of cost on prescribing.

With prescribing expenditure rising and evidence of prescribing costs variation, general practitioners (GPs) in the UK are under increasing pressure to contain spending. The introduction of cash-limited, unified budgets and increased monitoring of prescribing within Primary Care Organizations (PCO) are intended to increase efficiency and enhance GPs financial responsibility. Whilst GPs regularly receive data on the costs of their prescribing and also performance against a set prescribing budget, little is known about the extent to which GPs take cost into account in their prescribing decisions. This study undertook a qualitative exploration of the attitudes of various stakeholders on the relative importance and influence of cost on general practice prescribing. In order to explore a plurality of perspectives, data were obtained from focus groups and a series of individual semi-structured interviews with GPs and key PCO stakeholders. The data suggest that although almost all GPs believed costs should be taken into account when prescribing, there was great variation in the extent to which this was applied and to how sensitive GPs were to costs. Cost was secondary to clinical effectiveness and safety, whilst individual patient need was emphasized above other forms of rationality or notions of opportunity costs. Conflict was apparent between a PCO policy of cost-containment and GPs' resistance to cost-cutting. GPs largely applied simple cost-minimization while cost-consideration was undermined by contextual factors. Implications for research and policy are discussed.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗

PubMed2003

Influences on GPs' decision to prescribe new drugs-the importance of who says what.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to understand the range of factors that influence GPs' uptake of new drugs METHODS: A total of 107 GPs selected purposively from high, medium and low new drug prescribing practices in two health authorities in the north west of England were interviewed using the critical incident technique with semi-structured interviews. Interview topics included reasons for prescribing new drugs launched between January 1998 and May 1999; reasons for prescribing the new drug rather than alternatives; and sources of information used for each prescribed drug. RESULTS: Important biomedical influences were the failure of current therapy and adverse effect profile. More influential than these, however, was the pharmaceutical representative. Hospital consultants and observation of hospital prescribing was cited next most frequently. Patient request for a drug, and patient convenience and acceptability were also likely to influence new drug uptake. Written information was of limited importance except for local guidelines. GPs were largely reactive and opportunistic recipients of new drug information, rarely reporting an active information search. The decision to initiate a new drug is heavily influenced by 'who says what', in particular the pharmaceutical industry, hospital consultants and patients. The decision to 'adopt' a new drug is clinched by subsequent personal clinical experience. CONCLUSIONS: Prescribing of new drugs is not simply related to biomedical evaluation and critical appraisal but, more importantly, to the mode of exposure to pharmacological information and social influences on decision making. Viewed within this broad context, prescribing variation becomes more understandable. Findings have implications for the implementation of evidence-based medicine, which requires a multifaceted approach.

Decision Making↗

PubMed2003

New drug uptake: qualitative comparison of high and low prescribing GPs' attitudes and approach.

BACKGROUND: Prescribing varies considerably between GPs, and a minority of GPs account for a large proportion of new drug prescribing. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to explore the differences in approach and attitudes towards new drug prescribing between high and low GP prescribers. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with 30 GPs who were either high or low prescribers of new drugs. Interview topics included reasons for prescribing new drugs; use of information sources; attitudes and approach to drug innovation; and consideration of the balance of risk and therapeutic benefit. RESULTS: Differences in GPs' appraisal of new drugs enabled the development of a classification of attitudes and approaches applying to high and low prescribers. Difference in the behaviours of each group is a matter of degree of attitude or influence rather than (usually) its absence. Key dimensions in the classification are attitudes towards new drug prescribing, perception of risk and benefits, strategies adopted for risk management, information-seeking behaviour and use of the pharmaceutical industry as a significant information source. CONCLUSION: Variability in GP prescribing of new drugs relates not only to levels of acquired knowledge, but also to differences in subjective and ideological beliefs.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗

PubMed2003

Understanding why GPs see pharmaceutical representatives: a qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: Doctors are aware of the commercial bias in pharmaceutical representative information; nevertheless, such information is known to change doctors' prescribing, and augment irrational prescribing and prescribing costs. AIM: To explore GPs, reasons for receiving visits from pharmaceutical representatives. DESIGN OF STUDY: Qualitative study with semi-structured interviews. SETTING: One hundred and seven general practitioners (GPs) in practices from two health authorities in the North West of England. RESULTS: The main outcome measures of the study were: reasons for receiving/not receiving representative visits; advantages/disadvantages in receiving visits; and quality of representative-supplied information. Most GPs routinely see pharmaceutical representatives, because they bring new drug information speedily; they are convenient and accessible; and can be consulted with a saving of time and effort. Many GPs asserted they had the skills to critically appraise the evidence. Furthermore, the credibility and social characteristics of the representative were instrumental in shaping GPs' perceptions of representatives as legitimate information providers. GPs also received visits from representatives for reasons other than information acquisition. These reasons are congruent with personal selling techniques used in marketing communications. CONCLUSIONS: The study draws attention to the social and cultural contexts of GP-representative encounters and the way in which the acquisition of pharmacological information within the mercantile context of representative visits is legitimated. This highlights the need for doctors to critically appraise information supplied by representatives in relation to other information sources.

Drug Industry↗