Hull S A, Cornwell J, Harvey C, Eldridge S, Bare P O
Department of General Practice and Primary Care, Queen Mary and Westfield College, Medical Sciences, Mile End Road, London E1 4NS, UK.
Fam Pract. 2001 Apr;18(2):167-73. doi: 10.1093/fampra/18.2.167.
The aim of this study was to examine the contribution of Asian ethnicity to the variation in rates of practice prescribing for antidepressant and anxiolytic medication, taking into account other population and practice organizational factors.
A practice-based cross-sectional survey was carried out of the prescribing of antidepressants and anxiolytics (daily defined dosages) in 164 general practices. The study was set in East London and the City Health Authority, which includes the multiethnic inner London boroughs of Hackney, Tower Hamlets, Newham and the City of London. The main outcome measures were the annual prescribing rates for each group of drugs, calculated as the total annual daily defined dosages divided by the practice population, and the ratio of antidepressant/ anxiolytic annual prescribing rates.
Prescribing rates for antidepressants showed a 25-fold variation between practices; this was greater for anxiolytics. The median annual prescribing rate for all antidepressants combined was 4.13 (interquartile range 2.50-5.88). For all anxiolytics and hypnotics combined the median annual prescribing rate was 3.55 (interquartile range 1.71-6.36). Univariate analysis showed that Asian ethnicity alone accounted for 28% of the variation in antidepressant prescribing and 20.5% of the variation in the anxiolytic prescribing. A backwards multiple regression model using 10 explanatory practice and population variables accounted for 47.7% of the variance in antidepressant prescribing and 34% of the variance in the anxiolytic prescribing.
In practices where the proportion of Asian patients is high, both antidepressant and anxiolytic prescribing is low. This is important for understanding interpractice prescribing variation and for setting levels of drug budgets. This study confirms that the low rates of non-psychotic disorders presented by Asian populations is not a selective feature of access to secondary care, but is evident in the prescribing behaviour of GPs. Uncertainty remains as to how much this is due to a lower prevalence rate, "culture-bound syndromes" or practical difficulties in diagnosis and management within the general practice setting.
本研究旨在探讨亚洲种族因素对抗抑郁药和抗焦虑药处方率差异的影响,并考虑其他人群和医疗机构因素。
在164家全科医疗机构开展了一项基于机构的横断面调查,调查抗抑郁药和抗焦虑药(每日规定剂量)的处方情况。研究地点位于东伦敦和城市卫生局,包括哈克尼、陶尔哈姆莱茨、纽汉姆等多民族聚居的伦敦内城区以及伦敦市。主要观察指标为每组药物的年处方率,计算方法为年每日规定剂量总数除以机构人口数,以及抗抑郁药/抗焦虑药年处方率之比。
各医疗机构之间抗抑郁药的处方率相差25倍;抗焦虑药的差异更大。所有抗抑郁药的年处方率中位数为4.13(四分位间距2.50 - 5.88)。所有抗焦虑药和催眠药的年处方率中位数为3.55(四分位间距1.71 - 6.36)。单因素分析显示,仅亚洲种族因素就占抗抑郁药处方差异的28%和抗焦虑药处方差异的20.5%。使用10个解释性机构和人口变量的向后多元回归模型解释了抗抑郁药处方差异的47.7%和抗焦虑药处方差异的34%。
在亚洲患者比例较高的医疗机构中,抗抑郁药和抗焦虑药的处方率均较低。这对于理解不同医疗机构间的处方差异以及设定药物预算水平具有重要意义。本研究证实,亚洲人群非精神病性障碍发病率较低并非是获得二级医疗服务的选择性特征,而是在全科医生的处方行为中明显可见。目前尚不确定这在多大程度上是由于患病率较低、“文化束缚综合征”,还是全科医疗环境中诊断和管理方面的实际困难所致。