ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the opinion of Primary Care physicians regarding electronic prescribing. METHODS: Descriptive study by means of a questionnaire sent to 527 primary care physicians. PERIOD: June 2014. The questionnaire included closed questions about interest shown, satisfaction, benefits, weaknesses, and barriers, and one open question about difficulties, all of them referred to electronic prescribing. Satisfaction was measured using 1-10 scale, and benefits, weaknesses, and barriers were evaluated by a 5-ítems Likert scale. Interest was measured using both methods. The questionnaire was sent by e-mail for on line response through Google Drive® tool. A descriptive statistical analysis was performed. RESULTS: The response rate was 47% (248/527). Interest shown was 8.7 (95% CI; 8.5-8.9) and satisfaction was 7.9 (95% CI; 7.8-8). The great majority 87.9% (95% CI; 83.8-92%) of respondents used electronic prescribing where possible. Most reported benefits were: 73.4% (95% CI; 67.8-78.9%) of respondents considered that electronic prescribing facilitated medication review, and 59.3% (95% CI; 53.1-65.4) of them felt that it reduced bureaucratic burden. Among the observed weaknesses, they highlighted the following: 87.9% (95% CI; 83.8-92%) of respondents believed specialist care physicians should also be able to use electronic prescribing. Concerning to barriers: 30.2% (95% CI; 24.5-36%) of respondents think that entering a patient into the electronic prescribing system takes too much time, and 4% (95% CI; 1.6-6.5%) of them perceived the application as difficult to use. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians showed a notable interest in using electronic prescribing and high satisfaction with the application performance.
Subject(s)
Electronic Prescribing , Physicians, Primary Care , Humans , Practice Patterns, Physicians' , Spain , Surveys and QuestionnairesABSTRACT
Se encuentran diferencias entre los diversos fármacos aprobados en España para el trastorno por déficit de atención/hiperactividad en estudios de tipo cuantitativo. No hay claras diferencias en estudios de tipo cualitativo. El número de pacientes a tratar para que uno alcance remisión completa (NNT) del metilfenidato (MTF) es de 2,2 a 5, y el tamaño del efecto (TE), de 0,9. La atomoxetina tiene un NNT de 4 y un TE de 0,7. Las ventajas del MTF de liberación inmediata (MTF-LI) respecto al de liberación prolongada (MTF-LP) residen en su bajo coste, su flexibilidad y mejores resultados en estudios cuantitativos. Por contra, el MTF-LP presenta un menor riesgo de abuso, precisa un menor número de tomas, una menor necesidad de terceros para el control de éstas y un menor riesgo de estigmatización. La combinación o cambio de MTF-LI y MTF-LP y la combinación de MTF con atomoxetina son en ocasiones necesarias para ajustar la posología de día laborable o de fin de semana. Iniciar el tratamiento con MTF-LI para luego mantener o cambiar a MTF-LP aporta ciertas ventajas en seguridad, ajuste de dosis y posología. La atomoxetina es la mejor alternativa si hay antecedente de eventos adversos con estimulantes en dosis bajas o moderadas, o falta de respuesta a los estimulantes en dosis altas. En caso de ansiedad comórbida importante, tanto el MTF como la atomoxetina tienen igual nivel de indicación. Si hay riesgo de abuso de sustancias, tanto la atomoxetina como el MTF-LP son de primera elección. Para el resto de indicaciones, el MTF constituye la primera elección (AU)
Quantitative studies have highlighted differences in several drugs approved for use in Spain in the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. No clear differences are observed, however, in the case of qualitative studies. The number of patients needed to be treated in order for one to reach complete remission (NNT) of methylphenidate (MTF) is from 2.2 to 5, and the effect size (ES) is 0.9. Atomoxetine has an NNT of 4 and an ES of 0.7. The advantages of immediate-release MTF (IR-MTF) over the extended-release version (ER-MTF) lie in its low cost, its flexibility and the better results obtained in quantitative studies. In contrast, ER-MTF offers a lower risk of abuse, needs to be taken fewer times with less need for third parties to control administration, and there is a lower risk of stigmatisation. Combination or changes of IR-MTF and ER-MTF and the combination of MTF with atomoxetine are sometimes necessary to adjust the weekday or weekend doses. Starting treatment with IR-MTF and then maintaining or changing to ER-MTF offers certain advantages as regards safety, dose adjustments and dosage. Atomoxetine is the best alternative if there is a background of adverse events with low or moderate doses of stimulants, or lack of response to high doses of stimulants. In cases of notable comorbid anxiety, both MTF and atomoxetine have the same level of indication. If there is a risk of substance abuse, both atomoxetine and ER-MTF are the preferred treatment. For the other indications, MTF is the preferred treatment (AU)
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Child , Adult , Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity/drug therapy , Methylphenidate/pharmacokinetics , Central Nervous System Stimulants/pharmacokinetics , Comorbidity , Psychotropic Drugs/pharmacokineticsABSTRACT
Quantitative studies have highlighted differences in several drugs approved for use in Spain in the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. No clear differences are observed, however, in the case of qualitative studies. The number of patients needed to be treated in order for one to reach complete remission (NNT) of methylphenidate (MTF) is from 2.2 to 5, and the effect size (ES) is 0.9. Atomoxetine has an NNT of 4 and an ES of 0.7. The advantages of immediate-release MTF (IR-MTF) over the extended-release version (ER-MTF) lie in its low cost, its flexibility and the better results obtained in quantitative studies. In contrast, ER-MTF offers a lower risk of abuse, needs to be taken fewer times with less need for third parties to control administration, and there is a lower risk of stigmatisation. Combination or changes of IR-MTF and ER-MTF and the combination of MTF with atomoxetine are sometimes necessary to adjust the weekday or weekend doses. Starting treatment with IR-MTF and then maintaining or changing to ER-MTF offers certain advantages as regards safety, dose adjustments and dosage. Atomoxetine is the best alternative if there is a background of adverse events with low or moderate doses of stimulants, or lack of response to high doses of stimulants. In cases of notable comorbid anxiety, both MTF and atomoxetine have the same level of indication. If there is a risk of substance abuse, both atomoxetine and ER-MTF are the preferred treatment. For the other indications, MTF is the preferred treatment.
