首页> 外文期刊>Cost Effectiveness Resource Allocation >Effects of prescription restrictive interventions on antibiotic procurement in primary care settings: a controlled interrupted time series study in China
【24h】

Effects of prescription restrictive interventions on antibiotic procurement in primary care settings: a controlled interrupted time series study in China

机译:处方限制性干预措施对基层医疗机构抗生素采购的影响:中国一项受控制的中断时间序列研究

获取原文
       

摘要

BackgroundThe overuse of antibiotics has been identified as a major challenge in regard to the rational prescription of medicines in low and middle income countries. Extensive studies on the effectiveness of persuasive interventions, such as guidelines have been undertaken. There is a dearth of research pertaining to the effects of restrictive interventions. This study aimed to evaluate the impacts of prescription restrictions in relation to types and administration routes of antibiotics on antibiotic procurement in primary care settings in China. MethodsData were drawn from the monthly procurement records of medicines for primary care institutions in Hubei province over a 31-month period from May 2011 to November 2013. We analyzed the monthly procurement volume and costs of antibiotics. Interrupted time series analyses with a difference-in-difference approach were performed to evaluate the effect of the restrictive intervention (started in August 2012) on antibiotic procurement in comparison with those for cardiovascular conditions. Sensitivity tests were performed by replacing outliers using a simple linear interpolation technique. ResultsOver the entire study period, antibiotics accounted for 33.65% of the total costs of medicines procured for primary care institutions: mostly non-restricted antibiotics (86.03%) and antibiotics administered through parenteral routes (79.59%). On average, 17.14 million defined daily doses (DDDs) of antibiotics were procured per month, with the majority (93.09%) for non-restricted antibiotics and over half (52.38%) for parenteral administered antibiotics. The restrictive intervention was associated with a decline in the secular trend of costs for non-restricted oral antibiotics (??0.36 million Yuan per month, p?=?0.029), and for parenteral administered restricted antibiotics (??0.28 million Yuan per month, p?=?0.019), as well as a decline in the secular trend of procurement volume for parenteral administered non-restricted antibiotics (??0.038 million DDDs per month, p?=?0.05). ConclusionsRestrictive interventions are effective in reducing the procurement of antibiotics. However, the effect size is relatively small and antibiotic consumptions remain high, especially parenteral administered antibiotics.
机译:背景技术在中低收入国家,对抗生素的合理处方而言,过度使用抗生素已被认为是一项重大挑战。已经对说服性干预措施的有效性进行了广泛的研究,例如指南。缺乏有关限制性干预措施影响的研究。这项研究旨在评估在中国初级保健机构中与抗生素类型和给药途径有关的处方限制对抗生素采购的影响。方法:从2011年5月至2013年11月的31个月内湖北省基层医疗机构药品月采购记录中提取数据。分析了抗生素的月采购量和成本。进行了采用差异差异法的中断时间序列分析,以评估限制性干预措施(自2012年8月开始)与心血管疾病相比对抗生素采购的影响。通过使用简单的线性插值技术替换异常值来执行敏感性测试。结果在整个研究期间,抗生素占基层医疗机构采购药品总成本的33.65%:主要是非限制性抗生素(86.03%)和通过肠胃外途径给药的抗生素(79.59%)。每月平均要采购1714万确定的日剂量(DDDs)抗生素,其中大多数(93.09%)用于非限制性抗生素,一半以上(52.38%)用于肠胃外施用抗生素。限制性干预与非限制性口服抗生素(每月36万元,p≤0.029)和肠胃外施用限制性抗生素(每月28万元)的长期费用下降相关。 ,p≥0.019),以及非肠道使用非限制性抗生素的采购量的长期趋势下降(每月0.03.8亿DDD,p≥0.05)。结论限制性干预措施可有效减少抗生素的采购。然而,效果的大小相对较小,并且抗生素的消耗仍然很高,尤其是肠胃外给药的抗生素。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号