Cluster randomized trials of prescription medicines or prescribing policy

public and general practitioner opinions in Scotland

Isla S. MacKenzie, Li Wei, Kenneth R. Paterson, Thomas M. MacDonald

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    2 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    AIMS To understand public and general practitioner (GP) opinion on the acceptability of randomized policy design (RPD) studies (cluster randomized trials) of prescription medicines in Scotland. METHODS We surveyed public opinion on the concept of RPD studies in a sample of 1040 adults to determine acceptability and understand how people feel when changes are made to their medicines. We also surveyed GPs (n=1034) about the concept of RPD studies as a tool for improving understanding of comparative effectiveness and safety of medicines in the 'usual care' setting. RESULTS Thirty per cent of people would be happy to receive a letter about randomized policy changes to their therapy, 31% would not mind or had no opinion and 39% would be unhappy. This view was sensitive to the reason for change; effectiveness and safety reasons were most acceptable (96%) and cost saving least acceptable (39%). Only 19% thought randomized policy change was not an acceptable method of determining the best treatments. Eighty-one per cent of respondents were willing for their medical data to be followed up to compare drug treatments (further 10% undecided). Participants reporting long-term medical conditions and those reporting previous changes to drug therapy were more in favour of RPD studies than other participants. Thirty-three per cent (n=341) of GPs responded to our survey. Of these, 45% were in favour of RPD studies, 19% were undecided and 36% not in favour. CONCLUSIONS The public in Scotland is broadly supportive of the concept of randomized policy design studies of medicines, while there is a spread of opinion among GPs.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)354-361
    Number of pages8
    JournalBritish Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
    Volume74
    Issue number2
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 2012

    Fingerprint

    Scotland
    Public Policy
    General Practitioners
    Prescriptions
    Safety
    Public Opinion
    Therapeutics
    Costs and Cost Analysis
    Drug Therapy
    Pharmaceutical Preparations

    Cite this

    @article{b59118b7b0644732b499b0f1d40bee66,
    title = "Cluster randomized trials of prescription medicines or prescribing policy: public and general practitioner opinions in Scotland",
    abstract = "AIMS To understand public and general practitioner (GP) opinion on the acceptability of randomized policy design (RPD) studies (cluster randomized trials) of prescription medicines in Scotland. METHODS We surveyed public opinion on the concept of RPD studies in a sample of 1040 adults to determine acceptability and understand how people feel when changes are made to their medicines. We also surveyed GPs (n=1034) about the concept of RPD studies as a tool for improving understanding of comparative effectiveness and safety of medicines in the 'usual care' setting. RESULTS Thirty per cent of people would be happy to receive a letter about randomized policy changes to their therapy, 31{\%} would not mind or had no opinion and 39{\%} would be unhappy. This view was sensitive to the reason for change; effectiveness and safety reasons were most acceptable (96{\%}) and cost saving least acceptable (39{\%}). Only 19{\%} thought randomized policy change was not an acceptable method of determining the best treatments. Eighty-one per cent of respondents were willing for their medical data to be followed up to compare drug treatments (further 10{\%} undecided). Participants reporting long-term medical conditions and those reporting previous changes to drug therapy were more in favour of RPD studies than other participants. Thirty-three per cent (n=341) of GPs responded to our survey. Of these, 45{\%} were in favour of RPD studies, 19{\%} were undecided and 36{\%} not in favour. CONCLUSIONS The public in Scotland is broadly supportive of the concept of randomized policy design studies of medicines, while there is a spread of opinion among GPs.",
    author = "MacKenzie, {Isla S.} and Li Wei and Paterson, {Kenneth R.} and MacDonald, {Thomas M.}",
    note = "Copyright 2012 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.",
    year = "2012",
    doi = "10.1111/j.1365-2125.2012.04195.x",
    language = "English",
    volume = "74",
    pages = "354--361",
    journal = "British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology",
    issn = "0306-5251",
    publisher = "Wiley",
    number = "2",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Cluster randomized trials of prescription medicines or prescribing policy

    T2 - public and general practitioner opinions in Scotland

    AU - MacKenzie, Isla S.

    AU - Wei, Li

    AU - Paterson, Kenneth R.

    AU - MacDonald, Thomas M.

    N1 - Copyright 2012 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.

    PY - 2012

    Y1 - 2012

    N2 - AIMS To understand public and general practitioner (GP) opinion on the acceptability of randomized policy design (RPD) studies (cluster randomized trials) of prescription medicines in Scotland. METHODS We surveyed public opinion on the concept of RPD studies in a sample of 1040 adults to determine acceptability and understand how people feel when changes are made to their medicines. We also surveyed GPs (n=1034) about the concept of RPD studies as a tool for improving understanding of comparative effectiveness and safety of medicines in the 'usual care' setting. RESULTS Thirty per cent of people would be happy to receive a letter about randomized policy changes to their therapy, 31% would not mind or had no opinion and 39% would be unhappy. This view was sensitive to the reason for change; effectiveness and safety reasons were most acceptable (96%) and cost saving least acceptable (39%). Only 19% thought randomized policy change was not an acceptable method of determining the best treatments. Eighty-one per cent of respondents were willing for their medical data to be followed up to compare drug treatments (further 10% undecided). Participants reporting long-term medical conditions and those reporting previous changes to drug therapy were more in favour of RPD studies than other participants. Thirty-three per cent (n=341) of GPs responded to our survey. Of these, 45% were in favour of RPD studies, 19% were undecided and 36% not in favour. CONCLUSIONS The public in Scotland is broadly supportive of the concept of randomized policy design studies of medicines, while there is a spread of opinion among GPs.

    AB - AIMS To understand public and general practitioner (GP) opinion on the acceptability of randomized policy design (RPD) studies (cluster randomized trials) of prescription medicines in Scotland. METHODS We surveyed public opinion on the concept of RPD studies in a sample of 1040 adults to determine acceptability and understand how people feel when changes are made to their medicines. We also surveyed GPs (n=1034) about the concept of RPD studies as a tool for improving understanding of comparative effectiveness and safety of medicines in the 'usual care' setting. RESULTS Thirty per cent of people would be happy to receive a letter about randomized policy changes to their therapy, 31% would not mind or had no opinion and 39% would be unhappy. This view was sensitive to the reason for change; effectiveness and safety reasons were most acceptable (96%) and cost saving least acceptable (39%). Only 19% thought randomized policy change was not an acceptable method of determining the best treatments. Eighty-one per cent of respondents were willing for their medical data to be followed up to compare drug treatments (further 10% undecided). Participants reporting long-term medical conditions and those reporting previous changes to drug therapy were more in favour of RPD studies than other participants. Thirty-three per cent (n=341) of GPs responded to our survey. Of these, 45% were in favour of RPD studies, 19% were undecided and 36% not in favour. CONCLUSIONS The public in Scotland is broadly supportive of the concept of randomized policy design studies of medicines, while there is a spread of opinion among GPs.

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84863739590&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2012.04195.x

    DO - 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2012.04195.x

    M3 - Article

    VL - 74

    SP - 354

    EP - 361

    JO - British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology

    JF - British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology

    SN - 0306-5251

    IS - 2

    ER -